From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 15 22:50:02 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 4F660106566B for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:50:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-annu.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-annu.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0682C8FC19 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:50:01 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApwEALqJf02DaFvO/2dsb2JhbACEPqJGr32RSoEng0V2BIxd X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,191,1299474000"; d="scan'208";a="113442382" Received: from erie.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.206]) by esa-annu-pri.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 15 Mar 2011 18:50:01 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA6BB3F89; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:50:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 18:50:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <885374289.1469919.1300229401064.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <4D7D02A8.30001@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.201] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.10_GA_2692) 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: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 22:50:02 -0000 > 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?