On Sun January 23 2011, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 07:32:12PM +0100, mourad.alia@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
> > I am working with Julien in the same project (see my previous email on
> > OpenVZ vs VServer) :
>
> > Our software is a java application representing a VoIP client which
> > able of managing multiple calls at the same time. This application
> > uses many server distributed over many servers (out of the scope here)
> > to create and to route calls. In our case, we are obliged to manage
> > such calls from one instance which is solely hosted on a VServer and
> > which is assigned to one client ID. Consequently, we should assign
> > many adresses to one guest. Everything is working fine without the JMX
> > component. When enabling JMX (part of the software) which uses the
> > socket 0.0.0.0.(all interfaces) only the first guest is started.
>
> what is 'the first guest'?
>
> > I hope this will help in udertanding our problem,
>
> maybe somebody could give an example what happens
> and what he 'thinks' that should happen instead :)
>
Sorry Herbert, I don't have a clue yet either. ("Duh..")
And this is (or was) my field, telecommunications networks.
Mike
> TIA,
> Herbert
>
> > -- Mourad
> > ________________________________________
> > De : Michael S. Zick [mszick@morethan.org]
> > Date d'envoi : vendredi 21 janvier 2011 18:32
> > À : vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
> > Objet : Re: [vserver] VServer and Multicasting
> >
> > On Fri January 21 2011, Furgerot Julien wrote:
> > > Sorry for these obscures questions out of any context.
> > > It's a proprietary software developped by my firm.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm...
> > Guess that means it is unlikely that I designed and/or wrote it. ;-)
> >
> > > This software can
> > > manage multiple VoIP calls simultaneously, one per multicast address.
> > >
> >
> > Still don't see your problem, why not 256 vserver contexts, one per
> > each of 256 individual multicast address.
> >
> > > It's why we need to bind to several, dynamicaly assigned multicast IP
> > > addresses, not only one per guest.
> > >
> >
> > So go ahead and assign it, only one of the 256 vserver contexts will
> > handle the processing - nearly identical to having only one thread handle
> > the processing.
> >
> > > With your help, we find a workaround to addresses assignment by
> > > creating one interface by IP.
> > >
> >
> > Great, now do that another 255 times.
> >
> > Mike
> > > But now, we would like to force
> > > "any_addr" (0.0.0.0) binding to a choosen IP/interface, because a
> > > component in our software we don't manage (java JMX) bound to 0.0.0.0.
> > > In my experiments with vservers, only the first started vserver can
> > > bound to any_addr, so others can't bind to the same port.
> > >
> > > Maybe have I miss something with vserver configuration ?
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Julien Furgerot
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Michael S. Zick <mszick@morethan.org> wrote:
> > > > On Fri January 21 2011, Furgerot Julien wrote:
> > > >> Thank you for this reply.
> > > >>
> > > >> However, recall, that my software is a VoIP application which could
> > > >> use different (a range of) multicast adresses during its lifecycle.
> > > >> These addresses are allocated on demand by another software. Thus,
> > > >> each instance is configured to be potentially linked to one of these
> > > >> adresses. Furthermore, one can have many simultaneous VoIP
> > > >> communications where each one uses one given multicast address. Except
> > > >> if there is a solution to resolve this multiple multicast adresses
> > > >> bindings, I can't see how this could be handled.
> > > >>
> > > >> What do you think ?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Still can not see your problem in your description above.
> > > > Does a single, VoIP call use multiple addresses during its lifetime?
> > > >
> > > > I would think not. Once the call is put up, it will use whatever
> > > > address it was assigned until the call is torn down.
> > > >
> > > > Or, at least that was the way they used to work.
> > > >
> > > > Do you mean by "my software" something you invented yourself?
> > > > Or do you mean "the software I am using"? What software?
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Julien
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Michael S. Zick <mszick@morethan.org> wrote:
> > > >> > On Fri January 21 2011, Furgerot Julien wrote:
> > > >> >> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at> wrote:
> > > >> >> > services binding to 0.0.0.0 inside a Linux-VServer guest
> > > >> >> > will be automagically limited to the assigned IP addresses,
> > > >> >> > which in turn means, if you assign different IP addresses
> > > >> >> > to different guests, they will live happily side by side
> > > >> >> > even if the services inside the guests bind to 0.0.0.0
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> You are right, I have tested when the VM is bound to one IP address
> > > >> >> and it works fine !
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> However, in my configuration each VServer is bound to many IP
> > > >> >> addresses in order to be able to receive/send from/to many multicast
> > > >> >> addresses that are allocated on demand. Thus, I was wondering whether
> > > >> >> it is any hint so that to restrict sockets on 0.0.0.0 to be bound to
> > > >> >> only one of these associated IP addresses ? Is there any patch that
> > > >> >> can overcome this problem ?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Why not just run a vserver per multicast address?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Your whatever-it-is application is probably running an instance
> > > >> > per multicast address anyway (perhaps as a thread).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > If you "hashify" the on-disk files, you'll only have a single
> > > >> > copy of those files (on-disk and in-memory) -
> > > >> > So even running a few hundred context-per-address vservers would
> > > >> > probably not be all that resource intensive.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Mike
> > > >> >> Again, thank you for all,
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Julien
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > *********************************
> > This message and any attachments (the "message") are confidential and intended solely for the addressees.
> > Any unauthorised use or dissemination is prohibited.
> > Messages are susceptible to alteration.
> > France Telecom Group shall not be liable for the message if altered, changed or falsified.
> > If you are not the intended addressee of this message, please cancel it immediately and inform the sender.
> > ********************************
>
>
Received on Mon Jan 24 11:01:34 2011