[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [HTCondor-users] CCB private address
- Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2022 10:41:35 +0200
- From: Raphael KleinemÃhl <kleinemuehl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [HTCondor-users] CCB private address
> I'm not sure why your schedd is on port 9619. Was that deliberate
> for some reason?
Yes, this was indeed deliberate. If both containers are started on the
same machine they will fight for 9618 otherwise.
> I can't tell from the log fragment you posted, but if the
> negotiator can't connect to its own public IP, you'll just need to fix
> that (or use TCP_FORWARDING_HOST to choose an IP everyone in your pool
> can connect to).
You're right, this is a problem with docker networking that I was not
yet able to fix. For what it's worth: 192.168.56.1 is the
TCP_FORWARDING_HOST and 172.20.0.2 is docker internal. But it seems to
be a problem to connect to 192.168.56.1 from inside the container.
> The private network address is included so that daemons which are
> on the same private network can bypass CCB and talk to each other
> directly. There should never be a reason to contact a CCB on its
> private network address; by definition, its public address is reachable
> from anyone who wants to use it as a broker. (The code removes the
> private network address on purpose; not removing the private network
> name is just a confusing oversight.)
Ah, ok. Thanks for clearing that up. When I saw the private network name
being advertised I thought it might help me get around the above problem.
But now I have just set up a separate CCB, which also works fine.
At some point I will find this docker problem, but for now everything works.
So again, thanks for the reply,