toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I was thinking about spreading connections between masters, but wasn't sure if that was good practice. Sounds like it's OK
From: main@DVSwitch.groups.io <main@DVSwitch.groups.io> on behalf of Steve N4IRS <szingman@...>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2018 10:42:11 AM
Subject: Re: [DVSwitch] hblink BM talkgroups
To piggyback on Cort, one thing to consider is that Masters can go down. It does not happen too often, but it does happen. I can make a case for not putting all your eggs in one basket.
On 7/20/2018 1:39 PM, Cort N0MJS via Groups.Io wrote:
You don’t have to connect to multiple different masters to do that (if you don’t want to). You should be able to use a different set of “credentials” and make a 2nd connection to the same one if you want.
As far as what is “best”, it kinda depends on what your goals are — and since you just said “hblink” but didn’t say whether you were using hb_confbridge.py or hb_bridge_all.py… It’s harder to try and surmise what you’re looking to do.
If you’re just looking to make this a “proxy” connection (with local fail-over), then I’d say do it with hb_bridge_all.py and one BM connection.
But if you’re wanting to potentially connect different downstreams (hotspots & repeaters) to different upstream (BM) TGIDs at the same time, then you’ll find that you need multiple connections to BM with not more than a single static TGID per
Does that help any?
0x49 DE N0MJS
On Jul 20, 2018, at 11:19 AM, Jim K6JWN <nessenj@...
I successfully setup hblink yesterday and connected 3 hotspots to it (eventually I will connect a MMDVM repeater into the mix). Along with the hotspots, I created a client connection to BM 3108 and piped
in a static tg (3100 for now to test). I am interested in bringing 3 static talkgroups in, would it be best to bring them in over the existing client connection, or would it be easier to setup multiple client connections to multiple BM masters and have each
one be responsible for a static TG?
Hope my question makes sense, if not let me know.