Page MenuHomeSoftware Heritage

Try to rationalize a bit ports published on the host
AcceptedPublic

Authored by douardda on Thu, Jan 10, 1:54 PM.

Details

Reviewers
ardumont
Group Reviewers
Reviewers
Summary

depends on D910

Diff Detail

Repository
rCDFD Dockerfiles for developers
Branch
loaders
Lint
Lint Skipped
Unit
Unit Tests Skipped
Build Status
Buildable 3538
Build 4580: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

douardda created this revision.Thu, Jan 10, 1:54 PM
olasd added a subscriber: olasd.Thu, Jan 10, 4:09 PM

I don't think we should introduce a new set of ports for the "swh services" (i.e. the ports and services that are currently declared in swh-docs/docs/services.txt)

However, I'm fine with the idea of grouping the ports for the ancillary services in a fixed range, e.g. 51xx

ardumont added a subscriber: ardumont.EditedThu, Jan 10, 4:55 PM
In D911#19568, @olasd wrote:

I don't think we should introduce a new set of ports for the "swh services" (i.e. the ports and services that are currently declared in swh-docs/docs/services.txt)

However, I'm fine with the idea of grouping the ports for the ancillary services in a fixed range, e.g. 51xx

Yes, thx for mentioning the file, i did not remember where it was!

Also, I like the idea of 51xx, it's like the standard for admin service on ports below 1024 ;)

douardda updated this revision to Diff 3024.Tue, Jan 15, 5:13 PM

keep swh's services port to their default values

ardumont accepted this revision.Wed, Jan 16, 12:13 PM

I guess that means all anciliary services are running from ports 5050 onwards.
below that it's the main swh ones.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Wed, Jan 16, 12:13 PM