This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[mat-wg] Atlas UDMs and Probe-Assignments
- Previous message (by thread): [mat-wg] Atlas UDMs and Probe-Assignments
- Next message (by thread): [mat-wg] Atlas UDM and API keys?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Fri Jul 26 14:09:20 CEST 2013
Hi, On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:45:03AM +0200, Robert Kisteleki wrote: > > The difference would be, of course, if someone runs long-running > > trends and you stop/start (variant 3) and re-schedule all the probes, > > their experiment might be ruined - so for them, variant 4 would be > > better. > > Sure. These seem to be different use cases, so the best approach seems to > be to support all of them (eventually). Well, that's sort of what I tried to express :-) - "it makes sense to have all of these options, as different users need different behaviours". [..] > > While at it... :-) - I noticed that the measurements I set up were a > > bit over the top (read: eating up way more credits than my single probe > > is creating, and also eating up more than "+1m" can replenish). So I > > wanted to adjust the test parameters slightly - reduce the number of > > packets from "5" to "3", reduce the number of probes from "100" to > > "50", etc. - and the user interface won't let me do that. > > > > Is this a local browser / operator problem, or an "this is just not > > supported by the software and maybe never will" missing feature? > > The later one. We didn't really hear (so far) from users that this would > be a useful feature. We could develop features to add or remove individual > probes to/from existing measurements, through some kind of UI or API calls. > > > (Uh, and I just find that I can't seem to restart one of the UDMs > > either if I ever stop it - intentional, or ui/operator error?) > > See above -- it's very valuable to us to hear such requests from you. > Regarding this particular case, keep in mind restarting an older > measurement would have its own problems, e.g. it's entirely possible that > the same probes cannot be allocated the second time around. That'd lead to > all kinds of odd cases. For me, when editing "fundamental" options (number of probes, or restarting an already-terminated UDM), basically re-scheduling the UDM from scratch as if newly entered into the system, with a completely freshly allocated list of probes, would be perfectly fine. It still saves on having to re-enter all the data, and being re-assigned a new number. OTOH, for changing things like packet size or number of packets, it would be nice to keep the list of assigned probes. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/mat-wg/attachments/20130726/e65765d6/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [mat-wg] Atlas UDMs and Probe-Assignments
- Next message (by thread): [mat-wg] Atlas UDM and API keys?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ mat-wg Archives ]