Upload to two LAN devices simultaneously


Recommended Posts

In my work I need to flash software applications to flow computers from my laptop. Currently I need to do each one individually using in-house software. Which takes time if you have 15 FC?s to do.

Im wondering if there might be a way to flash all of them at the same time by the use of some kind of exotic networking trick? E.g if I was flashing 172.16.106.30 and all the way to 172.16.106.39, I have been flashing each FC individually. Now the FC?s are all networked, so is it possible to do something like 172.16.106.30-39 or something like that?

Any ideas?

not a noob question mate. Company i work for produced these, well, we're contracted by them, and we design the metering systems in their entirety .

a daniel flow computer http://www.emersonprocess.com/daniel/produ...oductlevel1.htm

  rageagainstmachine said:
interesting, sounds ideal. what do you mean be careful wit subneting?

With subnetting, the broadcast address might not end with 255 like in the example.

Btw, if you use broadcast, you will send the data to every single computer that's on the network!

Be aware that you might put a lot of stress on the network in this way!

  bsquirle said:
With subnetting, the broadcast address might not end with 255 like in the example.

Btw, if you use broadcast, you will send the data to every single computer that's on the network!

Be aware that you might put a lot of stress on the network in this way!

exactly! everything i was going to explain =P

thank you

ok, well i tried it i.e. ( 172.16.106.255) . nothing happened. the flow computers are set up with their IP addy, and a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0.

im using this hub to test it on two flow computers. http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/pr...icg8x/index.htm

any suggestions?

  rageagainstmachine said:
ok, well i tried it i.e. ( 172.16.106.255) . nothing happened. the flow computers are set up with their IP addy, and a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0.

im using this hub to test it on two flow computers. http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/pr...icg8x/index.htm

any suggestions?

So you tried sending the data to the broadcast and nothing happened?

(Sure you took the right broadcast? Take the IP of one of the computers and replace the last octet with 255 (ex.: 192.168.2.128 => 192.168.2.255), that's the broadcast...)

  OfF3nSiV3 said:
well the computers should receive the packets, maybe they're not configured to handle the traffic that way

Could be.

If sending software to the flow computers is a two way process (if the flow computer answers) things might get a bit messy.

(Uploading software gets a bit confused?)

If this doesn't work, you could still try the multicast option, but if your software doesn't natively support it, I personally wouldn't fiddle around with it to much.

this is a screen of the software i use to flash the flow computers. the flow computers themselves are configurable, through IP addy, subet mask, gateway addy etc. when i tpyed "172.16.106.255" in the hostname, the programe just hung for a while, then said no response from the host! however, i tried pinging 127.16.106.255, and i got a response. hmmmm!

post-45041-1178130486.jpg

  rageagainstmachine said:
when i tpyed "172.16.106.255" in the hostname, the programe just hung for a while, then said no response from the host!

then it's a 2 way transfer, probably TCP, which means the flow computers will need to be configured explicitely to reply to your machine, not the source address in the packets

this is a big problem because that's at programming level

  rageagainstmachine said:
however, i tried pinging 127.16.106.255, and i got a response. hmmmm!

only one? =P

if lots of pcs were in your subnet, you would get DDoS'ed =P

it's a smurf attack, sort of =P

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Both a game adaptation and it's on Amazon I'll set my hopes low
    • You shut your mouth you young fart, that was just a few years ago, lol.
    • Good effort, but unfortunately not very useful in the real world, since it doesn't support UEFI - which is a major drawback. More than that, most PCs these days have Secure Boot enabled by default, so unless you're tech savvy, the average joe is not going to disable Secure Boot - which means automated Windows > Linux migration programs like this will not work. And if you're tech savvy enough to know how to disable Secure Boot, then you're tech savvy enough to just flash a USB drive and install Linux the usual way - after all, the actual installation process is just point-and-click. So I don't see a use case here to be honest, especially considering the lack of UEFI support - especially when you consider that more and more Linux distros are completely dropping BIOS support (eg Fedora dropped it back in 2022). So this program is a bit too late to the party.
    • I agree with open rights group that the age check companies should be regulated but action does need to be taken imo, they may be called irresponsible parents but the fact is that many don't know how to set up blocks. Why should kids suffer because their parents don't know something? I think the UK has always been a bit like this. We don't say healthcare is your responsibility, we tax everyone and make people register with the NHS. We also don't expect everyone to brush their teeth to maintain dental health, we just put fluoride in their water assuming people aren't brushing enough, because some probably aren't or aren't doing it properly. In general, this way of doing things works.
    • Well that's the weird thing, the UK really isn't a very religious country at all and the same politicians that are backing this (basically all of them) also support things like assisted dying which various religions spoke out against. I don't think this is coming from religion, of course religious groups will support it but I don't think they've started it.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Falcon.ai earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Falcon.ai earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Dedicated
      EYEREX earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Electronic Person earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      CyberCeps666 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      628
    2. 2
      ATLien_0
      236
    3. 3
      Xenon
      164
    4. 4
      neufuse
      142
    5. 5
      +FloatingFatMan
      123
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!