[Gluster-devel] spurious failures tests/bugs/tier/bug-1205545-CTR-and-trash-integration.t

[Krishnan Parthasarathi]

> > This approach could still surprise the storage-admin when glusterfs(d)
> > processes
> > bind to ports in the range where brick ports are being assigned. We should
> > make this
> > predictable by reserving brick ports setting
> > net.ipv4.ip_local_reserved_ports.
> > Initially reserve 50 ports starting at 49152. Subsequently, we could
> > reserve ports on demand,
> > say 50 more ports, when we exhaust previously reserved range.
> > net.ipv4.ip_local_reserved_ports
> > doesn't interfere with explicit port allocation behaviour. i.e if the
> > socket uses
> > a port other than zero. With this option we don't have to manage ports
> > assignment at a process
> > level. Thoughts?
> If the reallocation can be done on demand, I do think this is a better
> approach to tackle this problem.

We could fix the predictability aspect in a different patch. This patch, where
we assign ports starting from 65335 in descending order, can be reviewed independently.