new random introducer port on each start #1469

New issue

Closed

opened 2011-08-04 07:30:36 +00:00 by T_X · 11 comments

T_X commented

2011-08-04 07:30:36 +00:00

Owner

I've been using 'darcs obliterate' and 'darcs pull' to track this down to commits changeset:e5c4e83f4cfe3769 + changeset:2d16a16ee3d99482, have been 'darcs obliterat'ing until changeset:420e3aa2930cf1e7. This commit still works. Applying changeset:e5c4e83f4cfe3769 + changeset:2d16a16ee3d99482 on top of changeset:420e3aa2930cf1e7 does not seem to work anymore and introduces this random port issue for me.

The patch from #1385, commit changeset:2d16a16ee3d99482, does not seem fully fix the issue from changeset:e5c4e83f4cfe3769 (or introduces a new issue): When starting the introducer, it always sets a new random port in both introducer.furl and introducer.port (without any complaints though). I've been using 'darcs obliterate' and 'darcs pull' to track this down to commits changeset:e5c4e83f4cfe3769 + changeset:2d16a16ee3d99482, have been 'darcs obliterat'ing until changeset:420e3aa2930cf1e7. This commit still works. Applying changeset:e5c4e83f4cfe3769 + changeset:2d16a16ee3d99482 on top of changeset:420e3aa2930cf1e7 does not seem to work anymore and introduces this random port issue for me.

tahoe-lafs added the

labels 2011-08-04 07:30:36 +00:00

tahoe-lafs added this to the 1.9.0 milestone 2011-08-04 07:30:36 +00:00

daira commented

2011-08-04 16:35:10 +00:00

Replying to T_X:

The patch from #1385, commit changeset:2d16a16ee3d99482, does not seem fully fix the issue from changeset:e5c4e83f4cfe3769 (or introduces a new issue): When starting the introducer, it always sets a new random port in both introducer.furl and introducer.port (without any complaints though).

Please attach the tahoe.cfg for the introducer, and a listing of the introducer base directory.

Replying to [T_X](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/27413): > The patch from #1385, commit changeset:2d16a16ee3d99482, does not seem fully fix the issue from changeset:e5c4e83f4cfe3769 (or introduces a new issue): When starting the introducer, it always sets a new random port in both introducer.furl and introducer.port (without any complaints though). Please attach the `tahoe.cfg` for the introducer, and a listing of the introducer base directory.

T_X commented

2011-08-04 21:48:22 +00:00

Author

Owner

Attachment tahoe.cfg (520 bytes) added

tahoe.cfg of the buggy introducer node

**Attachment** tahoe.cfg (520 bytes) added tahoe.cfg of the buggy introducer node

tahoe.cfg

520 B

T_X commented

2011-08-04 21:49:26 +00:00

Author

Owner

Listing of the introducer node's base directory:

$ ls -lah /home/mesh-node/.tahoe-intro
total 40K
drwxr-xr-x  5 mesh-node mesh-node 4.0K Aug  4 20:39 .
drwxr-xr-x 23 mesh-node mesh-node 4.0K Aug  4 20:39 ..
-rw-------  1 mesh-node mesh-node   84 Aug  4 20:39 introducer.furl
-rw-------  1 mesh-node mesh-node    6 Aug  4 20:39 introducer.port
drwxr-xr-x  3 mesh-node mesh-node 4.0K Jul 29 15:27 logs
-rw-r--r--  1 mesh-node mesh-node   33 Aug  4 20:39 my_nodeid
drwx------  2 mesh-node mesh-node 4.0K Jul 29 15:27 private
-rw-r--r--  1 mesh-node mesh-node  520 Jul 29 15:27 tahoe.cfg
-rw-r--r--  1 mesh-node mesh-node  311 Jul 29 15:27 tahoe-introducer.tac
drwxr-xr-x  2 mesh-node mesh-node 4.0K Jul 29 15:27 tmp

Listing of the introducer node's base directory: ``` $ ls -lah /home/mesh-node/.tahoe-intro total 40K drwxr-xr-x 5 mesh-node mesh-node 4.0K Aug 4 20:39 . drwxr-xr-x 23 mesh-node mesh-node 4.0K Aug 4 20:39 .. -rw------- 1 mesh-node mesh-node 84 Aug 4 20:39 introducer.furl -rw------- 1 mesh-node mesh-node 6 Aug 4 20:39 introducer.port drwxr-xr-x 3 mesh-node mesh-node 4.0K Jul 29 15:27 logs -rw-r--r-- 1 mesh-node mesh-node 33 Aug 4 20:39 my_nodeid drwx------ 2 mesh-node mesh-node 4.0K Jul 29 15:27 private -rw-r--r-- 1 mesh-node mesh-node 520 Jul 29 15:27 tahoe.cfg -rw-r--r-- 1 mesh-node mesh-node 311 Jul 29 15:27 tahoe-introducer.tac drwxr-xr-x 2 mesh-node mesh-node 4.0K Jul 29 15:27 tmp ```

daira commented

2011-08-06 23:28:00 +00:00

Attachment fix-1469.darcs.patch (28435 bytes) added

node.py: ensure that client and introducer nodes record their port number and use that port on the next restart, fixing a regression caused by #1385. fixes #1469.

**Attachment** fix-1469.darcs.patch (28435 bytes) added node.py: ensure that client and introducer nodes record their port number and use that port on the next restart, fixing a regression caused by #1385. fixes #1469.

fix-1469.darcs.patch

28 KiB

daira commented

2011-08-06 23:28:37 +00:00

Attachment test-1469.darcs.patch (34688 bytes) added

test_runner.py: test that client and introducer nodes record their port number and use that port on the next restart. This tests for a regression caused by ref #1385.

**Attachment** test-1469.darcs.patch (34688 bytes) added test_runner.py: test that client and introducer nodes record their port number and use that port on the next restart. This tests for a regression caused by ref #1385.

test-1469.darcs.patch

34 KiB

daira commented

2011-08-06 23:29:33 +00:00

Attachment all-including-cleanups-1469.darcs.patch (45189 bytes) added

Includes fix, tests, and cleanups of the test code.

**Attachment** all-including-cleanups-1469.darcs.patch (45189 bytes) added Includes fix, tests, and cleanups of the test code.

all-including-cleanups-1469.darcs.patch

44 KiB

daira commented

2011-08-06 23:34:51 +00:00

The problem was that changeset:e5c4e83f4cfe3769, in addition to removing the code that read the old config files, removed the code that read config.port (for a client node) or introducer.port (for an introducer).

The problem was that changeset:e5c4e83f4cfe3769, in addition to removing the code that read the old config files, removed the code that read `config.port` (for a client node) or `introducer.port` (for an introducer).

zooko self-assigned this 2011-08-06 23:44:47 +00:00

zooko commented

2011-08-07 00:10:40 +00:00

Good patch! The only thing I might possibly do different is that this method named _remove is redundant with (but probably better than) [fileutil.remove_if_possible]source:trunk/src/allmydata/util/fileutil.py?annotate=blame&rev=4957#L221. Anyway: +1

Good patch! The only thing I might possibly do different is that this method named [_remove](http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/attachment/ticket/1469/all-including-cleanups-1469.darcs.patch#L352) is redundant with (but probably better than) [fileutil.remove_if_possible]source:trunk/src/allmydata/util/fileutil.py?annotate=blame&rev=4957#L221. Anyway: +1

zooko removed their assignment 2011-08-07 00:11:58 +00:00

daira was assigned by zooko

2011-08-07 00:11:58 +00:00

daira commented

2011-08-07 00:25:24 +00:00

In changeset:b9121e045fe2894c:

test_runner.py: fix a race condition in the test when NODE_URL_FILE is written before PORTNUM_FILE. refs #1469

In changeset:b9121e045fe2894c: ``` test_runner.py: fix a race condition in the test when NODE_URL_FILE is written before PORTNUM_FILE. refs #1469 ```

daira commented

2011-08-07 00:48:02 +00:00

In changeset:05684b9251780046:

node.py: ensure that client and introducer nodes record their port number and use that port on the next restart, fixing a regression caused by #1385. fixes #1469.

In changeset:05684b9251780046: ``` node.py: ensure that client and introducer nodes record their port number and use that port on the next restart, fixing a regression caused by #1385. fixes #1469. ```

daira added the

r/fixed

label 2011-08-07 00:48:02 +00:00

daira closed this issue

2011-08-07 00:48:02 +00:00

daira commented

2011-08-07 00:53:06 +00:00

Replying to zooko:

Good patch! The only thing I might possibly do different is that this method named _remove is redundant with (but probably better than) [fileutil.remove_if_possible]source:trunk/src/allmydata/util/fileutil.py?annotate=blame&rev=4957#L221. Anyway: +1

I changed it to use fileutil.remove, which is exactly what is needed. (Fail if the file doesn't get removed, but succeed if it didn't exist to start with or was removed concurrently.)

Replying to [zooko](/tahoe-lafs/trac/issues/1469#issuecomment-385998): > Good patch! The only thing I might possibly do different is that this method named [_remove](http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/attachment/ticket/1469/all-including-cleanups-1469.darcs.patch#L352) is redundant with (but probably better than) [fileutil.remove_if_possible]source:trunk/src/allmydata/util/fileutil.py?annotate=blame&rev=4957#L221. Anyway: +1 I changed it to use `fileutil.remove`, which is exactly what is needed. (Fail if the file doesn't get removed, but succeed if it didn't exist to start with or was removed concurrently.)