I wasn't sure if Aaron had his systems in a colo which I think he alluded to
earlier.
Jason Dillon wrote:
IMO its easier to just using a NAT'ing router... instead of mucking with
a proxy. Routers w/NAT are relatively cheap or if you have a Linux box
w/2 NICs you can roll any sort of fancier router you want... at the cost
of a bit more admin foo.
--jason
On Jul 28, 2006, at 5:47 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Just getting back to the multiple images behind a gateway system. I
was thinking the other images could simply go through the gateway
using a proxy rather than having to mees around with IP layer tricks.
Jason Dillon wrote:
Not sure... does ActiveMQ support it? If so... then sure... if
not... well, then we'd have to write a transport (er something like
that).
Why?
--jason
On Jul 28, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Could it be through a proxy?
Jason Dillon wrote:
Agents make a TCP connection to the central AMQ router running on
stan.gbuild.org... and then ActiveMQ takes care of the rest. So,
its not push or pull... but the Agent must initiate the connection.
--jason
On Jul 28, 2006, at 11:41 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 7/28/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm no expert on how the TCK runs, but I do not believe that you
need
a public IP. Though, with out a public IP, we can't use Cacti to
monitor the hosts, or ssh to them directly to admin them... but if
you dedicate one host as a gateway then we can get past that... and
might even be able to setup port forwarding for SNMP/Cacti
monitoring.
If there is any other issue that requires a public IP I am not aware
of it... and we should remove the need for it if one exists.
How does the GBuild master communicate with the GBuild slaves? Is it
all pull from the slaves?
Thanks,
Aaron
