From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 20 00:35:13 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36CAB1065670 for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:35:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@dougbarton.us) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx22.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B91E78FC0C for ; Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:35:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 16683 invoked by uid 399); 20 Feb 2011 00:35:07 -0000 Received: from router.ka9q.net (HELO doug-optiplex.ka9q.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@75.60.237.91) by mail2.fluidhosting.com with ESMTPAM; 20 Feb 2011 00:35:07 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 75.60.237.91 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4D6061B9.4030706@dougbarton.us> Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 16:35:05 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20110129 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rick Macklem References: <931979672.138955.1298150177898.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <931979672.138955.1298150177898.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mike@jellydonut.org, george+freebsd@m5p.com, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Jeremy Chadwick Subject: Re: statd/lockd startup failure X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 00:35:13 -0000 On 02/19/2011 13:16, Rick Macklem wrote: >> On 02/18/2011 10:08, Rick Macklem wrote: >>> The attached patches changes the behaviour so that it tries to >>> get an unused port for each of the 4 cases. >> >> Am I correct in assuming that what you're proposing is to >> (potentially) >> have different ports for all 4 combinations? I would suggest that this >> is not the right way to solve the problem. If I misunderstand, I >> apologize. >> > Well, that was what I was proposing. I think that would be a bad idea. It's hard enough to deal with tracking these services when they are on the same port. :) I don't think there is a single function that you can call that will provide you an open port on all 4, although it would probably be nice if we had one. Something along the line of open a port for 1, then try to open the same port on the other 3. If one of them fails, start the process over. In the common case (starting the services when the system starts) it shouldn't be difficult to find a port that is open on all 4. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/