mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Anindya Sinha" <anindya_si...@apple.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 34128: Enable different IP/Port for external access.
Date Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:15:47 GMT


> On June 11, 2015, 7:34 p.m., Vinod Kone wrote:
> > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp, lines 820-836
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/34128/diff/2/?file=963212#file963212line820>
> >
> >     If two libprocess based unix processes (e.g., scheudler and master) are within
the *same* bridged container, would they able to communicate with this change? Can you test
this to confirm?
> >     
> >     
> >     If not, a better option might be to instead have LIBPROCESS_BIND_IP and LIBPROCESS_BIND_PORT
that just changes the address we bind to. LIBPROCESS_IP and LIBPROCESS_PORT semantics could
be left untouched.
> 
> Anindya Sinha wrote:
>     If 2 libprocess based unix processes are running, they would point to a different
<public_ip:public_port> (most likely same public_ip but a different public_port, ie.
same LIBPROCESS_PUBLIC_IP but a different LIBPROCESS_PUBLIC_PORT). The processes themselves
would bind as it does today on <ip:port> (based in LIBPROCESS_IP and LIBPROCESS_PORT).
Once a request lands on a corresponding <public_ip:public_port>, a proxy listening on
that would forward that to the actual <ip:port> corresponding to the <public_ip:public_port>.
>     
>     As an example, mesos-master binds on 10.11.12.13:5050 (ip:port) with public_ip:public_port
as 192.168.100.100:6050, and say scheduler binds on 10.11.12.13:8081 with public_ip:public_port
as 192.168.100.100:9081. Requests received on 192.168.100.100:6050 shall be proxied over to
10.11.12.13:5050 (to reach mesos-master) and requests received on 192.168.100.100:9081 shall
be proxied over to 10.11.12.13:8081 (to reach scheduler).
> 
> Vinod Kone wrote:
>     ```
>     a proxy listening on that would forward that...
>     ```
>     
>     who sets up this proxy? or do you mean this is what happens currently in bridged
mode containers (e.g., docker)?

No this is not something that is part of docker. The proxy would be something external to
the container which would proxy the request to your application within the container.
This patch enables external entities viz. zookeeper reach the host (based on public_ip:public_port)
from where a proxy will be required to route to the application running within the container.
If we use <ip:port>, zookeeper won't be able to reach. The setting up of the proxy is
not a part of docker or libprocess.
Please also refer to relevant issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-2587.


- Anindya


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/34128/#review87611
-----------------------------------------------------------


On May 18, 2015, 10:08 p.m., Anindya Sinha wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/34128/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 18, 2015, 10:08 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-809
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-809
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Expose environment variables LIBPROCESS_PUBLIC_IP and LIBPROCESS_PUBLIC_PORT as the IP
and
> port which libprocess would advertise (if set). If not set, it defaults to
> the IP and port on which it binded to.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp e3de3cd6b536aaaf59784360aed546512dd04dc9 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/34128/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Testing:
>   make test
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Anindya Sinha
> 
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message