From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 12 23:09:00 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7449A106568B for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 23:09:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from doug-optiplex.ka9q.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A488162F07; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 23:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4D7BFD0B.6000405@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 15:08:59 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110304 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rick Macklem References: <1745116963.1290533.1299970596486.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <1745116963.1290533.1299970596486.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: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org 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 23:09:00 -0000 On 03/12/2011 14:56, Rick Macklem 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 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. >> > I suppose the patch could be changed to switch to "allow any port#" > after N failed attempts at getting the same one. (I'll admit I have > troiuble seeing why getting the same port# would fail "forever" unless > all ports are in use and, if that's the case, you're snookered.) Right. :) I'm not suggesting that you do that, btw. But I'm not opposed to the idea if it proves to be necessary (which I seriously doubt). > 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. Fair enough, and I'm usually the first to oppose needless complexity, but I think in this case it's worth it. 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/