Could and should the port selecting logic be pulled out into one common implementation used throughout the code base? It seems like having a common implementation of this would make it a lot easier to solve this type of problem in the future.
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 11:27 AM Brian Rowe <br...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Galen, this was actually my first instinct. Unfortunately this range is > passed into numerous places such as JGroups and BeanUtils, all of which > implement their own port selecting logic. > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Galen O'Sullivan <gosulli...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > Would it be feasible to reserve chosen ports before selecting ephemeral > > ports? I think this would resolve the collision issue described above. > > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 9:58 AM Brian Rowe <br...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > > I agree that we should have defaulted everything to using ephemeral > ports > > > and forced clients to explicitly assign ports and membership ranges if > > > needed (any of the reasons Anthony mentioned above). However, I don't > > > think we can change the default assigned ports at this point, unless we > > > want to try to go through the effort of verifying that no customers are > > > relying on the default assignments (is that even something we can do > with > > > any confidence?). The membership port range default, however, is > > something > > > we should be able to change, so long as we restrict it to a proper > subset > > > of the current default. I think the best we can do right now is just > to > > > make it so the default membership port range doesn't conflict with the > > > default assigned ports. > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > > > > > So in the Dockerfile you explicitly set the server to start on port > > > 40404, > > > > problem solved. In whatever environment where you need it on a > specific > > > > port you then assign that port. But for all the other cases where we > > > don’t > > > > need to know it, like most of the time, it should just pick something > > > > ephemeral and work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 5, 2018, at 1:57 PM, Anthony Baker <aba...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think there are a lot of dependencies when deploying geode that > > rely > > > > on well-known ports and port ranges (e.g. exporting ports from a > > > container, > > > > firewall rules, etc). Changing the default server port from 40404 to > > ?? > > > > would break stuff. > > > > > > > > > > Here’s the rule from our own Dockerfile: > > > > > > > > > > # Default ports: > > > > > # RMI/JMX 1099 > > > > > # REST 8080 > > > > > # PULE 7070 > > > > > # LOCATOR 10334 > > > > > # CACHESERVER 40404 > > > > > EXPOSE 8080 10334 40404 1099 7070 > > > > > > > > > > Anthony > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Oct 5, 2018, at 1:45 PM, Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> But if all ports where ephemeral by default then no collisions > > right? > > > > Why have any port have a default to a single fixed value or > overlapping > > > > range of values. Since our opinionated use case is for clients to > > connect > > > > via locators then a known server port isn’t important. > > > > >> > > > > >>> On Oct 5, 2018, at 10:55 AM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The problem is that the membership port is picked *first*. So it > > may > > > > pick > > > > >>> 40404. Then, when the cache server tries to use port 40404, it > > gets a > > > > >>> collision. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -Dan > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 10:52 AM Jacob Barrett < > > jbarr...@pivotal.io> > > > > wrote: > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> If we just default to 0 then the OS will pick is a port in > > whatever > > > > range > > > > >>>> is ephemeral and free. We don’t have to do any work. No need to > > > > define a > > > > >>>> range and seek an open port. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>>> On Oct 5, 2018, at 10:40 AM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 10:31 AM Jacob Barrett < > > > jbarr...@pivotal.io> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> Why not change the default behavior to that of port 0, letting > > the > > > > OS > > > > >>>>>> select an open ephemeral port if the user doesn’t specify a > > > specific > > > > >>>> port? > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I think what we'd really like to do is change the cache server > > port > > > > to > > > > >>>>> something other than 40404. Maybe 0 (pick a port), or maybe > > > something > > > > >>>> less > > > > >>>>> than 32K. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Unfortunately, on most linux distributions the ephemeral port > > range > > > > is > > > > >>>> 32K > > > > >>>>> -> 61K, which includes 40404, which I think is why Brian is > > > > proposing a > > > > >>>>> subset of that range. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> -Dan > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
