statd/lockd startup failure

Rick Macklem rmacklem at
Sun Feb 20 18:16:45 UTC 2011

> On 02/19/2011 13:16, Rick Macklem wrote:
> >> On 02/18/2011 10:08, Rick Macklem wrote:
> >>> The attached patches changes the behaviour so that it tries to
> >>> get an unused port for each of the 4 cases.
> >>
> >> Am I correct in assuming that what you're proposing is to
> >> (potentially)
> >> have different ports for all 4 combinations? I would suggest that
> >> this
> >> is not the right way to solve the problem. If I misunderstand, I
> >> apologize.
> >>
> > Well, that was what I was proposing.
> I think that would be a bad idea. It's hard enough to deal with
> tracking
> these services when they are on the same port. :)
> I don't think there is a single function that you can call that will
> provide you an open port on all 4, although it would probably be nice
> if
> we had one. Something along the line of open a port for 1, then try to
> open the same port on the other 3. If one of them fails, start the
> process over. In the common case (starting the services when the
> system
> starts) it shouldn't be difficult to find a port that is open on all
> 4.
Yea, it would be a much bigger patch, but should be doable. I don't know
about "tracking" (whatever that means?), but I can see the argument for
doing this so that the # of ports used is minimized.

I'll wait to see if the patch fixes the problem before I proceed.

Btw, one issue w.r.t. the above algorithm is "how many iterations
do you do before giving up, when it fails?". I'd say "forever", but
logging something every 10 attempts, since the likelyhood of N failures
before a success only decreases, but never hits 0.


More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list