Re: [mcollective-users] Some discrepancy in direct addressing mode with reply-to

Great and thanks! Let me try this one, between in which location I should place this file to make normal mco query work with batch. On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 9:49:53 PM UTC+5:30, R.I.Pienaar wrote: > here's a batch fire and forget client, of course it doesnt return > instantly but it

Re: [mcollective-users] Some discrepancy in direct addressing mode with reply-to

here's a batch fire and forget client, of course it doesnt return instantly but it doesnt expect replies or wait for replies https://gist.github.com/ripienaar/52e73db531cc22b434b8433ababd8df2 On Sun, 28 Jan 2018, at 16:51, kk21987 wrote: > It would be good if I get true batch mode where all

Re: [mcollective-users] Some discrepancy in direct addressing mode with reply-to

It would be good if I get true batch mode where all requests have the same ID, since my consumer segregates the response output based on the ID only. The reason why I want to go with batch mode is, I have some set of servers where I need to collect some data. But in this the data and also the

Re: [mcollective-users] Some discrepancy in direct addressing mode with reply-to

On Sun, 28 Jan 2018, at 15:29, kk21987 wrote: > Yes please. If the reply-to works well with batch mode it would be great > for me as it will solve my proble :) yeah fire and forget doesnt support batch mode in the normal client in your use case does it matter if the replies all have the same

Re: [mcollective-users] Some discrepancy in direct addressing mode with reply-to

> On 28 Jan 2018, at 13:31, kk21987 wrote: > > Yeah I agree it doesn't make sense to run without batch in direct address > mode. But there is one problem using batch with reply-to. > > I have set the export for MCOLLECTIVE_EXTRA_OPTS with the values batch size > as

Re: [mcollective-users] Some discrepancy in direct addressing mode with reply-to

Yeah I agree it doesn't make sense to run without batch in direct address mode. But there is one problem using batch with reply-to. I have set the export for MCOLLECTIVE_EXTRA_OPTS with the values batch size as 200 and batch sleep as 30 and when I run mco query with --reply-to its returning

Re: [mcollective-users] Some discrepancy in direct addressing mode with reply-to

> On 28 Jan 2018, at 10:48, kk21987 wrote: > > I agree. I read about the Choria and very interested to use it. But am > running little old version of Ruby, Puppet where I need to plan it for > upgrade. But still Choria is in active dev am little concern to go ahead

Re: [mcollective-users] Some discrepancy in direct addressing mode with reply-to

Understood and thanks for the detailed clarification! I have already splitted as different sub collectives (2000 per subcollective) but again all the subcollectives are connected with Broker-A which will act as Central(just for naming convention) and this central will get big pressure when I

Re: [mcollective-users] Some discrepancy in direct addressing mode with reply-to

> On 28 Jan 2018, at 10:48, kk21987 wrote: > > I agree. I read about the Choria and very interested to use it. But am > running little old version of Ruby, Puppet where I need to plan it for > upgrade. But still Choria is in active dev am little concern to go ahead

Re: [mcollective-users] Some discrepancy in direct addressing mode with reply-to

I agree. I read about the Choria and very interested to use it. But am running little old version of Ruby, Puppet where I need to plan it for upgrade. But still Choria is in active dev am little concern to go ahead it on Production. Between I dig into furthermore and found its issue with

Re: [mcollective-users] Some discrepancy in direct addressing mode with reply-to

> On 28 Jan 2018, at 10:35, kk21987 wrote: > > Some improvement with your debug help! Looks like the reply-to is working > perfect as expected. The actual problem is triggering the command to all the > servers. > > I have total of 9824 servers connected with

Re: [mcollective-users] Some discrepancy in direct addressing mode with reply-to

> On 28 Jan 2018, at 09:33, kk21987 wrote: > > Thanks. > > Yes I captured the client debug log as well and could see that it publish > message with reply-to properly. > > Direct Addressing: > > D, [2018-01-28T02:24:56.851292 #17287] DEBUG -- : activemq.rb:402:in

Re: [mcollective-users] Some discrepancy in direct addressing mode with reply-to

Some improvement with your debug help! Looks like the reply-to is working perfect as expected. The actual problem is triggering the command to all the servers. I have total of 9824 servers connected with mcollective.nodes and when I run mco query against all the servers to execute some command

Re: [mcollective-users] Some discrepancy in direct addressing mode with reply-to

> On 28 Jan 2018, at 06:06, kk21987 wrote: > > My apologize. I misunderstood few things. > > Basically when I run mco query in direct addressing mode then it publish that > message as queue where as broadcast mode publish the message as topic. So I > suspect its

Re: [mcollective-users] Some discrepancy in direct addressing mode with reply-to

My apologize. I misunderstood few things. Basically when I run mco query in direct addressing mode then it publish that message as queue where as broadcast mode publish the message as topic. So I suspect its not an issue with the modes whatever the mco query use. The only thing I want to

Re: [mcollective-users] Some discrepancy in direct addressing mode with reply-to

On Sat, 27 Jan 2018, at 15:03, kk21987 wrote: > Hi, > > Am having some issue with --reply-to behavior and not sure if its an > issue > or the behavior itself like that. My setup is drawn in > .. > > > My environment is enabled with direct_addressing. Basically I always fire > the mco

[mcollective-users] Some discrepancy in direct addressing mode with reply-to

Hi, Am having some issue with --reply-to behavior and not sure if its an issue or the behavior itself like that. My setup is drawn in