accumulo-notifications mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael Wall (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-4331) Make port configuration and allocation consistent across services
Date Tue, 07 Jun 2016 17:13:21 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4331?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15318909#comment-15318909
] 

Michael Wall commented on ACCUMULO-4331:
----------------------------------------

It would be really useful if we are going to run multiple tservers on a node to be able to
set static ports.  So if I want to run 3 on a node, I can configure them to always run on
9997, 9998 and 9999 or whatever.  That is useful from a system monitoring perspective.  Also
useful because in the tserver page in the monitor, when a tserver dies and comes back up on
the same port, it would be removed from the list of dead tservers.  I find it useful to follow
restarts of a tserver in one log file as well, although I think [~dlmarion] has that working
already.  Would love to see the port as part of the log4j filename as well, so you know automatically
which log file to open instead of having to grep for something in all the log files.

> Make port configuration and allocation consistent across services
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-4331
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4331
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 1.8.0
>            Reporter: Dave Marion
>             Fix For: 1.8.0
>
>
> There was some discussion in ACCUMULO-4328 about ports, so I decided to track down how
the client ports are configured and allocated. Issues raised in the discussion were:
>  1. The port search feature was not well understood
>  2. Ephemeral port allocation makes it hard to lock servers down (e.g. iptables)
> Looking through the code I found the following properties allocate a port number based
on conf.getPort(). This returns the port number based on the property and supports either
a single value or zero. Then, in the server component (monitor, tracer, gc, etc) this value
is used when creating a ServerSocket. If the port is already in use, the process will fail.
> {noformat}
> monitor.port.log4j
> trace.port.client
> gc.port.client
> monitor.port.client
> {noformat}
> The following properties use TServerUtils.startServer which uses the value in the property
to start the TServer. If the value is zero, then it picks a random port between 1024 and 65535.
If tserver.port.search is enabled, then it will try a thousand times to bind to a random port.
> {noformat}
> tserver.port.client
> master.port.client
> master.replication.coordinator.port
> replication.receipt.service.port
> {noformat}
> I'm proposing that we deprecate the tserver.port.search property and the value zero in
the property value for the properties above. Instead, I think we should allow the user to
specify a single value or a range (M-N). 



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message