On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Ewan Mellor <ewan.mel...@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > We've got some complications though: > http://swift.openstack.org/howto_installmultinode.html says "Auth node: ... > This can be on the same node as a Proxy node" and "Storage nodes: Runs the > swift-account-server, swift-container-server, and swift-object-server." This > implies that we need at least two ports for a storage proxy, and three ports > for a storage node. I think that some people plan to run the Glance API and > registry on the same machine too. We could run these things on 80, 81, and > 82 in the case of a storage node, but I don't see that that's any better than > using arbitrary ports as we are at the moment. 8080 is a possibility too of > course, but some people may want to run web UIs on these nodes too, in which > case it would be nice to keep 8080 available. > All said, I think if people are serious about running storage nodes with > account, container, and object servers together, then it's reasonable for us > to ask for new ports to be assigned. The argument is weaker (but still > reasonable I think) for storage API nodes with auth and proxy together (proxy > will use port 80, but we still need one for auth).
I don't see a lot of utility in trying to get IANA assigned ports for services that are completely internal to swift. They could change in the future, and vary greatly between different configurations/deployments anyway. I do recommend that in a production environment, public HTTP-based services live on port 80/443. I also recommend that the swift auth server is for entertainment purposes only. -- Mike _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
