On 08/22/2016 08:08 AM, Prasanna Kalever wrote: > Can someone please invest few cycles here ? > The bulk of the team is at KVM Forum in Toronto with limited time and access, so please try to be patient. John > 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 > -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list