On 05/08/2012 07:22 AM, Bryan Bartone wrote:
> Hi Steven -
>
> Thanks for the response. These are definitely not unix domain sockets:
>
> udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:60174 0.0.0.0:* 16198/corosync
> udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:49193 0.0.0.0:* 16198/corosync
> udp 0 0 192.168.40.19:694 0.0.0.0:* 16198/corosync
> udp 0 0 192.168.10.19:694 0.0.0.0:* 16198/corosync
> udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:34366 0.0.0.0:* 16198/corosync
> udp 0 0 0.0.0.0:35409 0.0.0.0:* 16198/corosync
>
> Here is the related corosync config section:
>
> interface {
> member {
> memberaddr: 192.168.10.20
> }
> member {
> memberaddr: 192.168.10.19
> }
> ringnumber: 0
> bindnetaddr: 192.168.10.0
> mcastport: 694
> ttl: 1
> }
> interface {
> member {
> memberaddr: 192.168.40.220
> }
> member {
> memberaddr: 192.168.40.19
> }
> ringnumber: 1
> bindnetaddr: 192.168.40.0
> mcastport: 694
> ttl: 1
> }
> transport: udpu
> rrp_mode: passive
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Dake [mailto:sdake@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 11:22 AM
> To: Bryan Bartone
> Cc: discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: corosync udpu mystery ports
>
> On 05/01/2012 08:10 AM, Bryan Bartone wrote:
>> First, thanks for taking the time to read this email. I am using
>> corosync and pacemaker on a security appliance we manufacture. I am
>> running udpu mode. I see that for each interface I define, there is a
>> udp listening socket using the mcastport I defined in corosync.conf
>> and two other ephemeral listening ports. The mcastaddr port is bound
>> to the interface I defined in corosync.conf. The ephemeral ports are bound to
>> all interfaces. I would like to know what the purpose of those ports
>> are, and why they are bound to 0.0.0.0. Thanks.
>>
>>
Thanks to Honza for sorting this out:
UDPU mode creates a socket descriptor per node in the configuration.
The reason it does this is to avoid overloading one socket file
descriptor under heavy load conditions. I believe the bug you see is
that these sockets _should_ be bound to the bindnetaddr, rather then ANY.
Regards
-steve
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> Probably a bug (udpu is a new feature). There should be one port for incoming packets and one port for outgoing packets, all bound to the proper interface. One of the listening ports may be a unix domain socke (used to setup shared memory ipc)t, are you sure that isn't the case?
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
