From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 12 10:21:18 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 3171C106566C for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:21:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il) Received: from kabab.cs.huji.ac.il (kabab.cs.huji.ac.il [132.65.16.84]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD5AA8FC18 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pampa.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.80.32]) by kabab.cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp id 1PyLwg-000PaY-Fu; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 12:21:14 +0200 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2 To: Rick Macklem In-reply-to: <2122282816.1268010.1299884622480.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> References: <2122282816.1268010.1299884622480.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> Comments: In-reply-to Rick Macklem message dated "Fri, 11 Mar 2011 18:03:42 -0500." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 12:21:14 +0200 From: Daniel Braniss Message-ID: Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Doug Barton 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: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:21:18 -0000 > > >> 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. > > >> > > >> can you send me the patches? > > >> thanks, > > >> danny > > > > > They're attached. If you get to test them, please let me know > > > how it goes. > > > > > > rick > > > > Hi Rick, > > the good side of living on different time zones :-) > > I got impatient, so I came up with a different fix. > > The rational is that IMHO, there is no need for all listeners > > to be on the same port: > > rnd> rpcinfo protonew |grep mountd > > 100005 1 udp6 ::.3.141 mountd superuser > > 100005 3 udp6 ::.3.141 mountd superuser > > 100005 1 tcp6 ::.3.141 mountd superuser > > 100005 3 tcp6 ::.3.141 mountd superuser > > 100005 1 udp 0.0.0.0.3.141 mountd superuser > > 100005 3 udp 0.0.0.0.3.141 mountd superuser > > 100005 1 tcp 0.0.0.0.3.92 mountd superuser <--- > > 100005 3 tcp 0.0.0.0.3.92 mountd superuser <--- > > rnd> rpcinfo -t protonew mountd > > program 100005 version 1 ready and waiting > > rpcinfo: RPC: Program/version mismatch; low version = 1, high version > > = 3 > > program 100005 version 2 is not available > > program 100005 version 3 ready and waiting > > > > the patches are in: > > ftp://ftp.cs.huji.ac.il/users/danny/freebsd/patches/address_already_in_use/ > > > > cheers, > > danny > > > Yep, a patch that doesn't make them all use the same port# is much > simpler. However, others, such as Doug Barton feel that it is important > that they use the same port#. (Something he called "tracking".) 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? 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 :-). IMHO, having a system that might fail to reboot is not very pleasant. danny