On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 05:01:48PM -0400, Hugh O. Brock wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:53:48PM +0200, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 07:57:05PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:54:19PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 05:15:26PM +0200, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
> > > > > Just stumpbled on another issue:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 04:43:50PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > > > > @@ -366,6 +367,13 @@ struct _virDomainGraphicsDef {
> > > > > > char *display;
> > > > > > int fullscreen : 1;
> > > > > > } desktop;
> > > > > > + struct {
> > > > > > + int port;
> > > > > > + int tlsPort;
> > > > > > + char *listenAddr;
> > > > > > + char *keymap;
> > > > > > + char *passwd;
> > > > > > + } spice;
> > > > > > } data;
> > > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > just like vnc, spice needs autoport here (as well as in the schema).
> > > > >
> > > > > I wanted to ignore that, however, migration is impossibly unreliable
> > > > > without autoport=yes - the destination may have the port binded to
> > > > > something else.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, i'll add that.
> > >
> > > BTW, is there any recommended port range to use for SPICE TCP and
> > > TLS ports ? VNC for example starts at 5900 and searches upwards
> >
> > currently I use 5900 upward for spice ports too, and 5900 downward for
> > tlsPort. (better keep it this way to save changes in iptables)
>
> Dan K., isn't there some magical range from 5900-5999 or something
> that VDSM ignores? Or did I dream that?
No, you weren't dreaming. I hoped to save libvir-list from this vdsm's
historical oddity. Yes, in RHEV-H-2.1 we squander the 5891--5909 range.
--
Libvir-list mailing list
Libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list