Can someone please invest few cycles here ? Thanks, -- Prasanna On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Prasanna Kalever <pkalever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [ oops! apologies, my previous draft miss the links ] > > Hello, > > This was the scenario close to 3 years back, libvirt's live migration > tries to use ports in ephemeral port range, but has no fallback to use > (an)other port(s) when the one it wants is already in use. > > If some port say 49152 is already used by some application say gluster > in our case (gluster as of today also uses 49152-65535), live > migration fails because of lack of fallback mechanism in libvirt, > that's where gluster had compromised to go with some hack [1] on bug > [2] since getting that addressed in libvirt takes more time than it > does with gluster. > > As may releases passed from then in libvirt, I hope now there exist a > fallback mechanism for port conflicts in libvirt. > > Can someone confirm so ? > > Also It will be greatly appreciable, if someone can tell how the port > binding (mostly defense on clash) works with libvirt live migration > today ? > > [1] http://review.gluster.org/#/c/6210/ > [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018178 > > Sincere Thanks, > -- > Prasanna -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list