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]/
[atlas] probe allocations
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] probe allocations
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] probe allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andreas Strikos
astrikos at ripe.net
Wed Nov 13 21:05:08 CET 2013
On 11/13/13, 11:58 AM, Gilles Massen wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > On 13/11/13, 19:26 , Andreas Strikos wrote: >> Hi Gilles, >> >> after some more investigation I spotted another problem related to the >> the group measurements. I released a hot fix and this should be fixed >> now but the initial problem still remains. The frequency, though, of >> faulty scheduling will be reduced. > Good, thanks for looking into it. > >> In the meantime if you or any other that is over-credited due to this >> bug please send us a mail and we can easily reimburse yours credits. > I will survive :) > >> I hope this answers your question :) > Well, almost. I'm not entirely clear on how to setup my new measurement > - considering that I'd want to have about 8 UDMs sharing the same set of > probes (or a good approximation). Since you fixed it almost entirely, > but not quite, should I retry the 'setup in one go' or rather do them > individually and chose the probes from the first UDM? Try as you used to, with grouping (in one go as you said). As I said, the faulty scheduling frequency should be low now. > best, > Gilles > > Regards, Andreas
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] probe allocations
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] probe allocations
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]