FR: Multiple Servers Usage Mode (Round-Robin)

[alexdelprete]

Right now I'm observing a random usage of the configured servers. I have only 2 servers and I expected a round-robin mode of usage for the tests, instead it seems random:

[alexjustesen]

So right now it's random by design (reference to code below). So you're looking for test A, next time test B, then A etc.?

speedtest-tracker/app/Jobs/SearchForSpeedtests.php

Lines 26 to 30 in 98cf390

	if (! blank($settings->speedtest_server)) {
	$item = array_rand($settings->speedtest_server);
	$ookla_server_id = $settings->speedtest_server[$item];
	}

[alexdelprete]

Yes, round-robin. If there are 3 servers: 1, 2, 3 and repeat the cycle from 1.

Was there a reason to have it random? If so, could we make it configurable?

[alexjustesen]

Yeah that was the original spec to hit feature parity against the abandoned past project. I like the idea of round robin but I'm not going to mark it as a priority yet.

I'll probably expand on the list of servers idea and provide the options for random, round robin and fail over if I truly want to go down this route.

[alexdelprete]

that was the original spec to hit feature parity against the abandoned past project

maybe it wasn't a "feature" but a bug. :)

I'm not going to mark it as a priority yet.

No problem, nothing urgent.

I'll probably expand on the list of servers idea and provide the options for random, round robin and fail over if I truly want to go down this route.

fail-over I think should not be mutually exclusive to the rest. I mean, if I select round-robin or random, and a server fails, I would prefer ST to skip to the next one.

[Bag72]

My two pennies worth. Fail over shouldn't be an option. If there is an issue it should fail safe and perform a test on something else. The next item on a list or if none then another list of reliable servers.

[alexdelprete]

I agree, and it's exactly what I meant in my previous post when I said it shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

[MartynKeigher]

+1 on the round-robin approach & the failover! :)

If ServerA is unreachable for any reason, then yes, attempting a speed test against ServerB should take place. eg...

• Test 1: ServerA- OK!
• Test 2: ServerB- OK!
• Test 3: ServerA- BAD... Changing target to ServerB- OK!
• Test 4: ServerA- OK!
• Test 5: ServerB- OK!
  ... and so on.

[jackblk]

Can we also do all of them?

I'm very interested in tracking my speed from my server to multiple locations, there are many use cases for this. Then in the dashboard I can view the result of my locations that I chose. That would be awesome.