On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 10:49:10AM +0200, Sven Stork wrote:
> On Friday 31 August 2007 09:07, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 08:04:00AM +0100, Simon Hammond wrote:
> > > On 31/08/2007, Lev Givon <l...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> > > > Received from George Bosilca on Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 07:42:52PM EDT:
> > > > > I have a patch for this, but I never felt a real need for it, so I
> > > > > never push it in the trunk. I'm not completely convinced that we need
> > > > > it, except in some really strange situations (read grid). Why do you
> > > > > need a port range ? For avoiding firewalls ?
> > >
> > > We are planning on using OpenMPI as the basis for running MPI jobs
> > > across a series of workstations overnight. The workstations are locked
> > > down so that only a small number of ports are available for use. If we
> > > try to use anything else its disaster.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately this is really an organizational policy above anything
> > > else and its very difficult to get it to change.
> > >
> > >
> > As workaround you can write application that will bind to all ports that
> > are not allowed to be used by MPI before running MPI job.
>
> Another option could be (if that match your policy) to limit the dynamic port
> range that is used by your OS. By this all application (unless they ask for
> an specific port) will get ports in this limited port range. If so the
> following link might be interesting for you:
>
> http://www.ncftp.com/ncftpd/doc/misc/ephemeral_ports.html
>
I was sure it is possible to set a port range on Linux, but didn't know how.
This is much better workaround.
--
Gleb.
