RE: so here's a wierd one

• To: "Daryl Herzmann" <akrherz@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Steve Chiswell" <chiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: RE: so here's a wierd one
• From: "Robert Mullenax" <Robert.Mullenax@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 09:49:22 -0500

A little off the topic, but

I am usually pretty conservative about upgrading LDM.  Is there an overwhelming 
reason to upgrade from 6.4.5?  I have zero issues with 6.4.5.



Thanks,
Robert Mullenax
CSBF Meteorology




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Daryl Herzmann
Sent: Tue 4/3/2007 9:33 AM
To: Steve Chiswell
Cc: Tyler Allison; ldm-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: so here's a wierd one
 
Hi Steve,

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Steve Chiswell wrote:

> What others have already mentioned in response is that you definitely 
> want to ensure that your feed requests to different upstream hosts are 
> either identical (to take advantage of autoshifting), or completely 
> disjoint.

The issue that I have with the newer LDM 6.6 is that I have 5 
machines producing products in the EXP feedtype.  I have two data 
collector machines that request EXP .* from these 5 machines.  This seems 
to horribly confuse LDM.  My only recourse is to make sure the data 
collectors are using slightly different feed requests so that it continues 
to get products from all 5 upstream hosts.

I'm probably not using LDM as it was designed for :)  My local topology 
looks more like spaghetti than a tree.

thanks,
   daryl

• References:
  • so here's a wierd one
    • From: Tyler Allison
  • Re: so here's a wierd one
    • From: Steve Chiswell
  • Re: so here's a wierd one
    • From: Daryl Herzmann