El Viernes, 20 de Marzo de 2009, Ovidiu Sas escribió:
> - Why ping_interval cannot be less than 180 seconds?
i don't know. the ping stuff was contributed by another author.
It should be configurable via a param
Well, there is already a param "pin_interval" to set the... ping interval. But for now ifyou set a value less than 180 then it is set to 180. IMHO it makes no sense having both parameters: - ping_interval = 100 - max_ping_interval = 80 XD
> - In case of failure_route and "next_gw()", is the used gw (failing gw) > automatically marked as down? (it would be useful so we don't need to > wait "fr_timer" seconds for each request during "ping_interval").
it might be possible to write a function that you could call (from failure route) to mark the current gw offline.
Or/and a function that will return the status of a particular gw. Before relaying, the script can check the availability of the gw and call the next_gw() if neccessary.
That's already done by "load_gws()" function. It only loads gws marked as active. What I mean is that setting online/offline is done when the ping successes/fails, and it would be nice to set a gw as "offline" manually after failure_route and so (without the need of waiting the ping action to be executed, which could take many seconds yet).
Regards.