Well I don't have a linear sequence either. My original thought was:
some bricks were added and removed and the port number counter stayed at
whatever it was before. That would explain the holes.
But I created my volume in just one command with all the bricks at once,
so obviously it's not everything.
Time to go check the sources.
[time passes...]
I don't have the logs from the time of the creation of that volume
anymore. Can you check in yours if you seen anything like this:
"base-port override: ..."
It's an info-level message, so you may not have it either.
Thanks!
JF
On 19/03/15 09:49, Melkor Lord wrote:> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:37 AM, JF Le Fill?tre
> <jean-francois.lefillatre at uni.lu
> <mailto:jean-francois.lefillatre at uni.lu>> wrote:
>
>
> So yes, on a given server you only see the ports for the bricks of
> that server. From that I can deduce that the glusterd server running
> on port 24007 provides the local port numbers to all other machines
> (servers and clients).
>
> And it seems that brick port numbers are unique pool-wise, rather
> than incrementing from a same number on each machine.
>
> Compare that with:
>
http://www.gluster.org/community/documentation/index.php/Basic_Gluster_Troubleshooting
>
> It states:
> "One TCP port for each brick in a volume. So, for example, if you
> have 4 bricks in a volume, port [...] 49152 - 49155 from GlusterFS
> 3.4 & later."
>
> It seems that the starting port isn't set in stone, and that the
> uniqueness of the port numbers takes precedence over a linear port
> number sequence on a given server.
>
>
> All right so my obvious question : What happened, in my case to ports
> 49153 and 49154?
>
> I have 1 volume with 3 bricks, starting at 49152, I should have *53, *54
> and *55 in a perfect world :-)
>
> --
> Unix _IS_ user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
--
Jean-Fran?ois Le Fill?tre
-------------------------------
HPC Systems Administrator
LCSB - University of Luxembourg
-------------------------------
PGP KeyID 0x134657C6