Huafeng Lu wrote:
> Darren J Moffat ??:
>> Huafeng Lu wrote:
>>> Darren J Moffat wrote:
>>>> Jia Ni wrote:
>>>>> I don't mean there can't be 2 pen process in the system.
>>>>> I mean pen can't be used on ftp, according to my comprehension.
>>>>>
>>>>> Back to you question, I can configure 'pen' on port 80 for http
>>>>> request. Meanwhile, I can configure it on port 8080 for http request.
>>>>> Again, I can configure it on port 8888 for http request at the same
>>>>> time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know how to deal with such situation according to your
>>>>> assumption. Should I add pen:http, pen:http8080, pen:http8888?
>>>> Yes that is exactly what I was suggesting.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Providing multiple SMF
>>> instances for many http ports looks really funny to me. (Yes 8080 and
>>> 8888 are common for http; with the pen command line options it's easy
>>> to configure, but providing a SMF instance for each port doesn't seem
>>> graceful to me.)
>>
>> That is the whole point of SMF instances. What you get from this is
>> the ability to have different people control the difference instances
>> and for them to be managed independently. For example if the 8080
>> service needs to come down for maintenance the 80 and 8888 versions
>> stay running if they are separate instances, if you put them all in
>> one instance you disrupt all three.
>
> So how about other ports? do we also need http:8088, http:6666,
> http:8765, etc?
You wouldn't use a : in the instance name it would look like this:
svc:/network/pen:default
May have nothing configured
svc:/network/pen:http80
pen/listen_port = 80
svc:/network/pen:http8080
pen/listen_port = 8080
All instances in this case would have the same start/stop methods but
would be able to have different properties.
--
Darren J Moffat
