RE: Many instances of LDM on the same machine

• To: "'David Knight'" <knight@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: RE: Many instances of LDM on the same machine
• From: "Lemay,Daniel [CMC]" <Daniel.Lemay@xxxxxxxx>
• Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:30:10 -0500

David,

Thanks for the info.

In fact I cannot told you the number of clients that want different files
from the same feed type because at this point this is not a true situation
but only an hypothetical situation (but could be a real situation in a near
future) that me and my group envisage.

Have a good week-end

Daniel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Knight [mailto:knight@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: 21 November, 2003 18:10
> To: Daniel.Lemay@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: knight@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Many instances of LDM on the same machine
> 
> 
> Oh well, it was a thought. One other one. The default
> ldm port is 388. Perhaps you can start different ldm
> processes listening on different ports. Sorry don't
> know if this is supported or not. I don't see
> how else you could determin that the correct
> ldm proccess is answering the request - but I'm no expert... 
> Sounds to me like either you, or your clients, are going to 
> have to be a little flexible. How many different variations 
> of the same feed do you need? Good luck, David
> 
> > David,
> > 
> > The problem is that I cannot put the files into two differents FEED 
> > types. It is one of the constraints of the problem (Many different 
> > clients want differents products, but each client want them tagged 
> > with the same FEED type).
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Daniel
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Knight [mailto:knight@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: 21 November, 2003 17:36
> > > To: Daniel.Lemay@xxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: Many instances of LDM on the same machine
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I see two options (since you don't want to use two machines).
> > > If you insert the products into the queue originally, then 
> > > you could insert each set of data as a seperate feedtype. If 
> > > this is an existing feed, that you need to split up, then you 
> > > could put a matching pattern in your pqact.conf and reinsert 
> > > the product into the queue using pqinsert and specifying a 
> > > different feedtype. Then just allow by feedtypes as usual. 
> > > Should work, haven't tried it. David
> > > 
> > > > It's really that they  SHOULDN'T get any data that is not
> > > intended to
> > > > them.
> > > > 
> > > > Daniel
> > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Steve Emmerson [mailto:steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > Sent: 21 November, 2003 17:07
> > > > > To: Lemay,Daniel [CMC]
> > > > > Cc: ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: Re: Many instances of LDM on the same machine
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Daniel,
> > > > > 
> > > > > >Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:45:47 -0500
> > > > > >From: "Lemay,Daniel [CMC]" <Daniel.Lemay@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >To: "'Steve Emmerson'" <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >Subject: RE: Many instances of LDM on the same machine
> > > > > 
> > > > > The above message contained the following:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Suppose that I'm in the following situation:
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > -I want to be sure that my "clients" can only 
> obtain the files
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > are intend for them. I don't want to rely on the fact they 
> > > > > will choose
> > > > > > themselves the subset of the feed I allow them. I know that
> > > > > I cannot
> > > > > > insert a regular expression in my ALLOW statement to
> > > restrict what
> > > > > > files they will have access.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's an interesting situation (and one that I haven't
> > > considered).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Is it the case that each downstream site SHOULDN'T get the 
> > > > > other's data or that such feed-requests would merely be
> > > inefficient?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Steve Emmerson
> > > > > 
> > > 
> 

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Many instances of LDM on the same machine
    • From: owner-ldm-users
  • Re: Many instances of LDM on the same machine
    • From: Alan Hall