Page 1 of 1
backup servers broken?
Posted: August 23rd, 2010, 10:15 am
by eydaimon
http://wiki.sabnzbd.org/configure-servers-v2 wrote:
Backup Server - (Renamed from "FillServer") You can specify additional servers, marked as backup that are only used when the main server(s) cannot download a piece of data. Sometimes it is useful to specify a primary server that SABnbzd should try to get its data from first, often this is a free server. A pay-per-GB server is the typical backup server. Note: you should at least have one primary (non-backup) server for downloading to start.
I had a chance to try this yesterday since I was switching newsservers. I decided to set my new newsserver as a backup to the current one, so that when I maxed my quota, the switch would be seamless. Not so. The backup server never took over. I had to remove the backup check in order for it to work (It was set as being enabled, ssl, and backup. Toggling backup only made it work).
Re: backup servers broken?
Posted: August 23rd, 2010, 4:08 pm
by shypike
It depends on the behaviour of the primary server.
The idea is that it politely says it doesn't have an article.
If instead if sends all kinds of nasty error messages, I'm not sure if this
will trigger the backup server.
You should probably set the primary server as "optional", that way it will be
ignored after kicking a fuss for a while.
Re: backup servers broken?
Posted: August 23rd, 2010, 4:13 pm
by eydaimon
Being that the main server couldn't "download a piece of data" I would have thought it would qualify. Maybe the documentation could be changed to clarify the behavior? Although I think the functionality should be changed to mirror the documentation instead.
iow, sabnzbd *tries* to download the document from the primary server. If it fails after X retries, it automatically moves to the backup server.
Re: backup servers broken?
Posted: August 23rd, 2010, 4:23 pm
by shypike
The algorithm specifically requires the "don't have the article" response.
Obviously that's open for improvement.
Not for the short term, because it's a rather complicated change.
Re: backup servers broken?
Posted: August 23rd, 2010, 4:41 pm
by eydaimon
yeah, that's why I suggested an immediate update to the documentation. And then long-term do the more complicated change.
Anyway, thanks for the clarification.
Re: backup servers broken?
Posted: August 23rd, 2010, 4:48 pm
by shypike
I'll update the docs, but I doubt people will actually notice the subtle difference.
You're a positive exception
