statd/lockd startup failure

[Doug Barton]

On 03/12/2011 14:56, Rick Macklem wrote:
>> On 03/12/2011 02:21, Daniel Braniss wrote:
>>> The problem with trying to get the same port for all
>>> tcp/udp/inet/inet6
>>> though might succeed most of the time, will fail sometimes, then
>>> what?
>>
>> Can you please describe the scenario when it's completely impossible
>> to
>> find a port that's open on all 4 families?
>>
>>> I saw Doug's commnent, and also the:), it's not as simple as
>>> tracking port
>>> 80 or 25, needs some efford, but it's deterministic/programable, and
>>> worst case
>>> you can still use the -p option (which again will fail sometimes:-).
>>
>> Given that Rick has already written the patch, I don't think it's at
>> all
>> unreasonable to put it in as the first choice, perhaps with a fallback
>> to picking any available port if there isn't one available for all 4
>> families.
>>
> I suppose the patch could be changed to switch to "allow any port#"
> after N failed attempts at getting the same one. (I'll admit I have
> troiuble seeing why getting the same port# would fail "forever" unless
> all ports are in use and, if that's the case, you're snookered.)

Right. :)  I'm not suggesting that you do that, btw. But I'm not opposed
to the idea if it proves to be necessary (which I seriously doubt).

> My only concern with the "same port# patch" is that it is more complex
> and, therefore, somewhat riskier w.r.t. my having gotten it wrong.

Fair enough, and I'm usually the first to oppose needless complexity,
but I think in this case it's worth it.


Doug

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/