Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:50:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: statd/lockd startup failure Message-ID: <885374289.1469919.1300229401064.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <4D7D02A8.30001@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 03/13/2011 08:23, Daniel Braniss wrote:
> >> On 03/12/2011 02:21, Daniel Braniss wrote:
> >>> The problem with trying to get the same port for all
> >>> tcp/udp/inet/inet6
> >>> though might succeed most of the time, will fail sometimes, then
> >>> what?
> >>
> >> Can you please describe the scenario when it's completely
> >> impossible to
> >> find a port that's open on all 4 families?
> > i did not say impossible, concidering that Rick asked how many times
> > he
> > should try, unless N is forever, it could fail.
>
> And what I'm asking is that you describe the circumstances which might
> lead to that failure.
>
> >>> I saw Doug's commnent, and also the:), it's not as simple as
> >>> tracking port
> >>> 80 or 25, needs some efford, but it's deterministic/programable,
> >>> and worst case
> >>> you can still use the -p option (which again will fail
> >>> sometimes:-).
> >>
> >> Given that Rick has already written the patch, I don't think it's
> >> at all
> >> unreasonable to put it in as the first choice, perhaps with a
> >> fallback
> >> to picking any available port if there isn't one available for all
> >> 4
> >> families.
> >>
> > as Rick mentioned, the patch is not trivial, and to quote him:
> > "My only concern with the "same port# patch" is that it is more
> > complex
> > and, therefore, somewhat riskier w.r.t. my having gotten it
> > wrong."
>
> Yeah, I saw that, did you see my response? I'm very much in favor of
> keeping things simple, but only as simple as they can be made.
>
[some good stuff snipped for brevity]
Ok, well I believe that the patches I currently have aren't broken.
How about I change the patches so that after N attempts fail, it does
a final attempt allowing different port#s for the 4 cases. (If that
fails, I don't think there is anything that can be done, since it
means that no port# is available for at least one of the four cases?)
Does that sound reasonable? rick
ps: I was thinking N should be somewhere in the 10<->100 range. Anyone
want to suggest a value for N?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?885374289.1469919.1300229401064.JavaMail.root>