Re: Chat binding to *:4445 - WAS {Re: [Webct-admin] license keyed to secondary IP address of machin
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
jlongland
|
From: Derek D. <di...@un...> - 2001-09-11 06:21:56
|
On Sep 10, 2001 at 21:05 -0500, ma...@mj... wrote: =>I realized I didn't answer the UDP/TCP question. => =>The reason UDP was used was to improve performance because it =>used to be a good idea to use UDP to improve performance in =>applications where you didn't care if the message got there on not. =>I'm not sure why we use both (I try not to think about the chat =>protocol too much, it makes my head hurt :). => =>But since modern tcp stacks are much better written and =>eventually you end up reimplemnting TCP (poorly even) with UDP if =>you maintain a UDP application long enough (because eventually =>you do care if the messages get there and in what order), it's better =>just to do it as TCP. Which is probably why we have TCP there as =>well. I am not a TCP/IP program, but I have read enough to know what Mark mentions. What I wonder, more out of curiouitiy, is why WeBCT chose one port for TCP and one for UDP. You can use one port, and still use two different protocols. I.e. 4445/TCP and 4445/UDP. Using one port number for TCP and a different one for UDP reinforces the student written code excuse mentioned in another post. =>On 7 Sep 01, at 18:27, Derek Diget wrote: =>> Changing the topic here, but it is related to a multi-IP addressed =>> machine. We are running into an issue with our two instances of WebCT =>> running on one box, but with apache binding to separate IP addresses. =>> (v3.1 and 3.6 on Solaris 8) =>> =>> Today, I heard some people were having problems with the chat room. =>> Open investigation, I see that WebCT's chat script has a problem. It =>> binds as "*:4445" by default. This is fine on a one IP address =>> machine, but seems to cause problems on a machine with more than one =>> IP address. (It sure does for the logs found under =>> webct/generic/public/chat/log.) I know that I can change the port =>> numbers in each instance of WebCT, but I feel that is a hack. =>> =>> Before I press this issue farther, do others agree that the chat =>> and whiteboard should look to see what address they are running under =>> and bind accordingly? Mark, can you answer me, (private if needed), what the stance is on binding to *:4445. I feal that is a bug for us running virtually hosted machines. I would like to see it bind to LICENSED_IP:4445. -- ********************************************************************* Derek Diget Western Michigan University - Kalamazoo Michigan USA - www.wmich.edu/ Office of Information Technology - UNIX support - www.wmich.edu/unix/ ********************************************************************* |