![]() I know other better standard file formats for configuration settings areĪvailable (INI, XML. Read/write the struct on a different processor. I'm not interested in a standard format file (its aĬustom configuration for the application) and I'll never need to In my application (running onĪ single processor), I have to read/write the struct from/to a file and Yes, they are considerations I also made. > omitted from a checksum since they're not part of the "value." > generic batch of chars), the bytes after '\0' should probably be For that matter, if `z' holds a string (as opposed to a ![]() > bit-field elements: The values of un-named bits are not necessarily > assigning to struct elements, a checksum that includes padding > necessarily preserved when assigning structs or even when > bytes - the size of `z' in your example almost begs for some > checksum computation will include the values of any padding > A problem with the approach you've outlined is that the Values to addressable local variables before applying the low. Such a function could even handle bit-fields by copying their Unsigned int PSChecksum(const struct PStruct *) Winds up making the cumbersome call(s) to the true underlying Specifically for struct PStruct objects, even if that function Handle bit-fields since you can't point at them.Ī preferable approach would be to write a checksum function Somebody could omit a field by accident, or (for checksums thatĪre non-commutative) get them in the wrong order. It seems to me this would be cumbersome, and also prone to error: One possibility would be to checksum the fields individually, Omitted from a checksum since they're not part of the "value." Generic batch of chars), the bytes after '\0' should probably be Similar concerns apply toīit-field elements: The values of un-named bits are not necessarily Necessarily preserved when assigning structs or even whenĪssigning to struct elements, a checksum that includes paddingīytes is unlikely to be very useful. If the cluster is still not in sync, open a ticket with Fortinet support.A problem with the approach you've outlined is that theĬhecksum computation will include the values of any paddingīytes - the size of `z' in your example almost begs for some Now find the differences in the actual config files and i f possible, add the missing portions on the device(s) and check if the cluster is in sync again afterwards: ![]() Second option is to go System -> HA and again, go with the mouse on the member that is not in-sync: 2 options how to check it.įirst via HA widget in the dashboard: go with your mouse over the member that is not in-sync: via ), to find out in which part of the configuration there is a mismatch.įrom FortiOS 7.0, it is possible to check which checksums are not matching. Step 1: Check the cluster units checksums and compare where the mismatch is: These HA units must be manually synchronized by detecting mismatches and correcting them using the following steps. This article describes how to troubleshoot a checksum mismatch in a FortiGate cluster.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |