Hi Roshan,


Thank you for your reply. What I understand from your reply is that Storm or 
its internal components(netty, zeromq etc) won't use any ports or its ranges 
for their TCP communication other than ones(6700, 6701, 6702, 6703) specified 
in storm.yaml? But in a previous deployment, we observed that storm uses ports 
39855, 35392 to listen for TCP connections. Is this only possible, when we 
don't explicitly configure the port numbers for workers?



> tcp6 0 0 :::39855 :::* LISTEN 9943/java 

> tcp6 0 0 :::35392 :::* LISTEN 9521/java 






Thanks & Regards,

Julian
















---- On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 12:59:13 +0530 Roshan Naik <[email protected]> 
wrote ----







Julian, 

   The config `supervisor.slots.ports` is used to control the number of workers 
on each Supervisor as well as the range ports on which the workers should 
listen for incoming connections. For example, the default config is: 

 

supervisor.slots.ports 

 - 6700 

 - 6701 

 - 6702 

 - 6703 

 

which means 4 workers per supervisor and each worker should bind to and listen 
on one of those 4 ports. 

 

-roshan 

 

 

 

 

On Friday, April 12, 2019, 6:09:37 AM EDT, Thomas Julian 
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi, 

 

Hope the question is clear. Please someone respond or let me know, if the 
question is not clear. 

 

Thanks & Regards, 

Julian 

 

________________________________ 

---- On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 13:15:07 +0530 Thomas Julian 
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote ---- 

 

> Team, 

> 

> We have provisioned a distributed storm environment(version:1.2.1) and 
> noticed that Storm(or netty) uses some random ports to listen for TCP 
> connections. Can these port(or ranges) be configured, as we do for 
> supervisor.slots.ports: 

>   - 6700   

> Ex. 

> 

> tcp6 0 0 :::39855 :::* LISTEN 9943/java 

> tcp6 0 0 :::35392 :::* LISTEN 9521/java 

> 

> Noted these connections on a supervisor node. We need to configure these 
> ports in firewall. Please guide! 

> 

> Thanks & Regards, 

> Julian. 

>

Reply via email to