Bug 1309626

Why is that need, can you please elaborate?

Hello Atin,

Actually, customer' setup is behind the firewall so due to change in brick port in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306656, customer have to open multiple port in firewall so Its a customer's requirement to force a specific brick port.

Mukul

Mukul,

But what happens if we fix 1306656? Does this requirement still hold true here?

~Atin

OTOH, 3.1.1 onwards we have also defined the firewalld rules for opening up the ports for RHGS. In that case brick ports ranging from 49152 to 49664 are already opened up.

Based on #c5 lowering down the priority and severity.

A customer has asked about the feasibility of having new bricks re-use previously freed ports before grabbing new ones.  Is that in the realm of this potential RFE or better for a new one?

(In reply to Cal Calhoun from comment #7)
> A customer has asked about the feasibility of having new bricks re-use
> previously freed ports before grabbing new ones.  Is that in the realm of
> this potential RFE or better for a new one?

We've started working on that, an upstream patch http://review.gluster.org/#/c/10785/ is posted for review. But I am still not convinced about this requirement where a dedicated port will be given to a specific volume. Does it really make sense?

(In reply to Atin Mukherjee from comment #8)
> (In reply to Cal Calhoun from comment #7)
> > A customer has asked about the feasibility of having new bricks re-use
> > previously freed ports before grabbing new ones.  Is that in the realm of
> > this potential RFE or better for a new one?
> 
> We've started working on that, an upstream patch
> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/10785/ is posted for review. But I am still
> not convinced about this requirement where a dedicated port will be given to
> a specific volume. Does it really make sense?

I think the only reason it applies is so that gluster behaves in a predictable way, by reusing resources rather than grabbing new ones.  I think this specific customer will be satisfied with assigning his ports directly but having ports re-used automatically might save some issues in the future.

(In reply to Cal Calhoun from comment #9)
> (In reply to Atin Mukherjee from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Cal Calhoun from comment #7)
> > > A customer has asked about the feasibility of having new bricks re-use
> > > previously freed ports before grabbing new ones.  Is that in the realm of
> > > this potential RFE or better for a new one?
> > 
> > We've started working on that, an upstream patch
> > http://review.gluster.org/#/c/10785/ is posted for review. But I am still
> > not convinced about this requirement where a dedicated port will be given to
> > a specific volume. Does it really make sense?
> 
> I think the only reason it applies is so that gluster behaves in a
> predictable way, by reusing resources rather than grabbing new ones.  I
> think this specific customer will be satisfied with assigning his ports
> directly but having ports re-used automatically might save some issues in
> the future.

Agreed, but the intention of this bug is different IMO and I don't think that's feasible. IIUC, the request is to use a specific port for a particular brick process which I don't think we can do here.

Mukul,

We wouldn't be able to meet this requirement since that will introduce some definite problems into the code.

-Atin

Alok,

Dev doesn't think this feature to be a feasible one. What's your take on this?

~Atin

Atin,

As per comment 13 & 14, closing the bz.

Mukul