Hi, I introduced a socket option in -HEAD that lets you bind multiple things to the same listen ports.
They're only load balanced if you're using RSS and set up RSS socket options as well; otherwise only one gets the incoming requests. IP_BINDMULTI and IP6_BINDMULTI. -a On 1 December 2014 at 08:14, Someone Somewhere <somewheresomeon...@gmail.com> wrote: > @Yuri , are you sure that the second instance of nc does not accept any > connection? > I did a simple test : -> > #: nc -l 12345 (shell 1) > #: nc localhost 12345 (shell2) > at this point netstat shows that there is no one listening on 12345. This > means any process should not be able to bind over port 12345(over TCP). > # nc -l 12345 (shell 3, shell 1 , 2 still active) > this instance of nc starts listening which I could verify via netstat cmd. > # nc localhost 12345 (shell 4) > this nc instance connected to the nc started in previous step over shell 3. > > Test ran on Fedora 20. > [will try this on freeBSD VM if you confirm that this is what you are > trying] > > > Could you verify if your second nc(server) instance is listening on the > same socket number? > > > -Kunal. > > > > On 1 December 2014 at 21:07, Karl Denninger <k...@denninger.net> wrote: > >> The second bind() call does fail but if the application ignores the return >> code.... Are you sure all the associated system call return codes are >> being checked? >> >> The right way to do this Imho is to have a parent process that calls bind >> and listen, gets the notification of an incoming connection via select() >> (allowing detection of exceptions as well) and then calls accept() and, now >> having a connected file handle, fork()s and executes whatever is to handle >> the connection with the parent closing the handle so as to not orphan the >> handle when the child exits. >> >> -- Karl >> (On Passport PDA) >> >> >> Original Message >> From: Yuri >> Sent: Monday, December 1, 2014 10:26 >> To: Daniel Corbe >> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org >> Subject: Re: Can multiple apps listen for TCP on the same port? >> >> On 12/01/2014 07:02, Daniel Corbe wrote: >> > Generally the answer to your question is no. Two applications cannot >> > occupy the same port on the same protocol at the same time. >> > >> > To expand on this answer and to hopefully shed some light on why the >> > behavior you're observing with your application is absolutely correct; >> > the calling application (in this case, nc) has to explicitly call bind(2) >> > before it can begin accepting connections. If that port is already in >> > use then the call to bind(2) will fail. And in your case I suspect nc >> > is simply choosing to silently fail. >> >> Here the question is what does it mean "occupy the port"? The first >> instance isn't listening any more. The listening socket was closed. Why >> the presence of the socket that was accepted from (now closed) listening >> socket in the first instance is considered "occupying it"? >> >> Actually no system call in the second instance ever fails. >> >> Yuri >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" >> >> >> %SPAMBLOCK-SYS: Matched [@freebsd.org+], message ok >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" >> > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
