Just to show what we currently have, below is the output of the aforementioned script. It relies on nmap to test connectivity. Currently the script just prints if there is a mismatch between announced port and the default one (8098), but we can also print announced port and its connectivity.
The output on my node (below) currently show one mismatch. The output on the introducer node currently shows three mismatches. Node Online 8098 Mismatch guldburken yes open no PIburken yes open no genell yes open no patrik yes open no mackan no - - monk yes open yes Skogis.. no - - Perra yes open no Best regards, /Anders 24 aug 2013 kl. 15:39 skrev Anders Genell <anders.gen...@gmail.com>: > I just wanted to "bump" this issue in order to clarify if I misinterpret what > to expect. > > I have updated my previously posted awk script > (https://www.dropbox.com/s/e6re3l1sranipuy/check_nodes.awk) to also check > ports. As we consistently set port 8098 as tub.port and in tub.location, I > would expect that port to be the one reported in the WUI in the Address > column, but I might be wrong? Most nodes report port 8098 there most of the > time, but not all of them always. Therefore my awk script checks access to > port 8098 for all reported IPs as well as access to potential alternative > ports that are reported. The latter are basically never accessible because > only 8098 is forwarded through the firewalls in the routers of the friends > running their respective nodes. 8098 seems so far always accessible for all > nodes that are reported to be online. > > At one point (this has since been remedied) one node was being reported as > being online with port reported as 8098 while 8098 was in fact being filtered > by a firewall. > > This all makes me wonder what the requirements are for a node being reported > as online? > > And where is the port number found that is being reported for a node in the > WUI? > > Regards, > /Anders > > > > 12 aug 2013 kl. 14:00 skrev "Zooko O'Whielacronx" <zoo...@gmail.com>: > >> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Anders Genell <anders.gen...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> We now have seven nodes in our friendnet and can soon start to rely on it >>> as a long term cloud backup. >>> >>> One thing we have noticed is that the nodes sometimes report different >>> ports in the web interface(s) than what has been set for tub.location and >>> tub.port. Checking /private/storage.furl shows the intended port, and the >>> system seems to work, so it's just a matter of easing our worried minds >>> about why e.g. 2 out of 7 nodes report wrong ports in the web interface? >> >> I'm not aware of any bug about this. Are you sure you're not confusing >> tub.port with web.port or something? >> >> https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/browser/trunk/docs/configuration.rst?rev=0a89b738bc05f17597555786b8f59dc05c46be0f#overall-node-configuration >> >> Please give more information about the mysterious behavior of the 2 >> (out of 7) nodes — what port number do they show? Is there anything >> listening on that port? >> >> I would love to hear how your friendnet goes. Most friendnets fail, >> unfortunately. Some of the people don't use the friendnet, and the >> ones who aren't using it don't invest a lot of effort in maintaining >> the servers (to serve those who do use it). I heard another story of >> such a failed friendnet from some people I met at DefCon. >> >> If anybody out there reading this has a story of a friendnet (either a >> failure or a success), I would love to hear it, to try to figure out >> what makes a successful one. >> >> Regards, >> >> Zooko
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev@tahoe-lafs.org https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
