Bug 885257
| Summary: | Need port 2224 opened up for cluster suite and port tcp port 11111 removed | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Reporter: | Chris Feist <cfeist> |
| Component: | firewalld | Assignee: | Thomas Woerner <twoerner> |
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Tomas Dolezal <todoleza> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 7.0 | CC: | dvossel, fdinitto, jpopelka, lhh, todoleza, twoerner |
| Target Milestone: | rc | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2014-06-13 09:34:26 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Chris Feist
2012-12-07 23:10:08 UTC
We also don't need tcp port 11111 opened anymore for cluster suite. What about the description of cluster-suite service ? It currently says "... Ports are opened for openais, ricci and dlm. ..." Is it OK or should it be amended too ? That should definitely be amended. It should be changed to this: <description>This option allows you to use the Red Hat Cluster Suite. Ports are opened for corosync, pcsd and dlm. You need the Red Hat Cluster Suite installed for this option to be useful.</description> Fixed upstream http://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/firewalld.git/commit/?id=3813b65859250e9715120d0f12896ce25f83d052 We need port 3121 opened as well for pacemaker_remote functionality. <description>This option allows you to use the Red Hat Cluster Suite. Ports are opened for corosync, pcsd, pacemaker_remote, and dlm. You need the Red Hat Cluster Suite installed for this option to be useful.</description> I've added [1] 3121/tcp [2]. [1] http://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/firewalld.git/commit/?id=1c970d7e357ebe7c4399e928a09030705ca33cbc [2] https://raw.github.com/ClusterLabs/pacemaker/master/doc/Pacemaker_Remote/en-US/Ch-Example.txt Looking at bug #801894, shouldn't the service be actually called high-availability (or similar) instead of cluster-suite ? CCing reporter of bug #801894 and asking once more: According to bug #801894 it seems the service should actually be named high-availability (Red Hat High Availability) instead of cluster-suite (Red Hat Cluster Suite). What do you think ? (In reply to Jiri Popelka from comment #9) > CCing reporter of bug #801894 and asking once more: > > According to bug #801894 it seems the service should actually be named > high-availability (Red Hat High Availability) instead of cluster-suite (Red > Hat Cluster Suite). What do you think ? This is correct the term RHCS or cluster suite is dead and gone. Should have gone a long time ago but old terms are hard to die ;) Yes the new name should be RHEL-HA to follow the channel distribution name. I don't know if firewalld allows aliases or dependency tree, but my suggestion would be: alias cluster or alias RHEL-HA -> open everything cluster related. either cluster or RHEL-HA Requires: pcsd && corosync && dlm pcsd -> port? corosync -> ports same as RHEL6 dlm -> port same as RHEL6. Hopefully I didn't miss anything :) Otherwise a RHEL-HA single target to open them all is also fine. Renamed upstream https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/firewalld.git/commit/?id=2891b3c13a7e892a28b0e521e6693aec7a2ca687 VERIFIED firewalld-0.3.9-3.el7.noarch This request was resolved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.0. Contact your manager or support representative in case you have further questions about the request. |