I checked lsof when I first noticed this was happening, and all of the
sockets showed up.
- Dave
J T wrote:
> Woops, I mean to say lsof, to see if the socket exists.
>
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:50 AM, David A. Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I ran an strace on the exis
Woops, I mean to say lsof, to see if the socket exists.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:50 AM, David A. Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I ran an strace on the existing srcds_i486 process for about 10 minutes
> (with 4 players connected) and it did not show any mention of these ports.
>
> I
Hi,
I ran an strace on the existing srcds_i486 process for about 10 minutes
(with 4 players connected) and it did not show any mention of these ports.
I have had a second L4D server running on the same box for two full days
now, and that server is only using 4 UDP ports. The second server was
gt;> Sent: 13 November 2008 15:56
>> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
>> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Lots of ports (Is this normal?)
>>
>> Thanks. There has been much discussion about which ports L4D uses when
>> forked, but I'm not using a forked server
ED] On Behalf Of David A. Parker
> Sent: 13 November 2008 15:56
> To: Half-Life dedicated Linux server mailing list
> Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] Lots of ports (Is this normal?)
>
> Thanks. There has been much discussion about which ports L4D uses when
> forked, but I'm not us
That looks like output from netstat, can you do an strace?
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:56 AM, David A. Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks. There has been much discussion about which ports L4D uses when
> forked, but I'm not using a forked server in my set up. It seems
> abnormal to have a
Thanks. There has been much discussion about which ports L4D uses when
forked, but I'm not using a forked server in my set up. It seems
abnormal to have a server process bind to 40+ apparently random ports
which would most likely be firewalled anyway.
Any ideas from the Valve devs?
Than
I rember reading around somehwere that l4d uses random ports, so maybe
this is the reason. But I wasent really looking into it so I could
have got the wrong idea.
HTH
2008/11/12 David A. Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Possible bug, perhaps?
>
> - Dave
>
> Antoine Libert wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov
Possible bug, perhaps?
- Dave
Antoine Libert wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 21:34, David A. Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a single-instance L4D server (no forks) running on a specific IP
>> address. When the server first started it bound to the normal ports
>> (TCP
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 21:34, David A. Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a single-instance L4D server (no forks) running on a specific IP
> address. When the server first started it bound to the normal ports
> (TCP 27015, and UDP 27005, 27015, 27020) and not much else. But after
Hi,
I have a single-instance L4D server (no forks) running on a specific IP
address. When the server first started it bound to the normal ports
(TCP 27015, and UDP 27005, 27015, 27020) and not much else. But after
running for a few days, it's now bound to 47 UDP ports:
$ netstat -an | grep
11 matches
Mail list logo
