Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0BA0200B25 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:05:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 9F83C160A54; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:05:22 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id E6EFB160A0E for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:05:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 47682 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jun 2016 16:05:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact notifications-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: jira@apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list notifications@accumulo.apache.org Received: (qmail 47645 invoked by uid 99); 8 Jun 2016 16:05:21 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Jun 2016 16:05:21 +0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arcas (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E3A2C1F60 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:05:20 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 16:05:20 +0000 (UTC) From: "Dave Marion (JIRA)" To: notifications@accumulo.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-4331) Make port configuration and allocation consistent across services MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 archived-at: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 16:05:22 -0000 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-4331?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15320826#comment-15320826 ] Dave Marion commented on ACCUMULO-4331: --------------------------------------- So, would this be for the range syntax, or the syntax in all cases? [9997,9997], [0,0], [9997,9999) > 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 > Assignee: 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)