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.
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/
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
