[Xitami] Multi server issue

[R O]

After all the talk of the wikidot and the new searchable forum thing (about 
3 or 4 months ago) I hadn't heard any more stuff.  I honestly didn't know it 
was up and running.  I will go check it all this week and lend what little 
relevance I have to the situation.  :-P

Will try the lwrp/ftp port changing thing tomorrow and will post the 
results.


Russel P. Olinger 
rolinger1 at hotmail.com

----------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:48:40 -0400
> From: preid at rci.rutgers.edu
> To: xitami at lists.xitami.org
> Subject: Re: [Xitami] Multi server issue
> 
> Here's some sloppy thinking from someone who knew the ARPAnet, drifted 
> away, and on return had to learn this newfangled TCP stuff.
> 
> > You have one port 80
> 
> IP is street address.
> 
> Port is a box at that address.
> 
> Clearly you can have 1234 Oak St Box 80, and 1235 Oak St Box 80, without 
> mix-up. 192.168.1.100:80 and 192.168.1.101:80 are -different- logical 
> places, even if they are same physical card in same machine.
> 
> What RO was trying -SHOULD- work.
> 
> Well, maybe. I'm constantly getting mail for "141" in other 
> buildings/streets. My mailman does not always get it right.
> 
> Hierarchical addressing systems are easy to screw-up. Mailman sorts 
> right only 99% of the time. If you are building a machine, it is easy to 
> overlook something, get it 99% right. If it screws-up only in unusual 
> situations, it may go unnoticed for a decade.
> 
> If this were Mac O/S 7, or Win 311, I'd bet on the tossed-together 
> non-unix TCP stacks of that vintage. But W2K+ stole a unix stack and 
> should do the right thing.
> 
> Magnus has magnanimously traced the conflict. Xitami opens a lot more 
> ports than just 80. My reading is that some of these are opened without 
> specifying an IP. The default is "all", the first copy already snagged 
> those ports, the request is refused, Xitami suspends itself.
> 
> Is it a bug? Since you CAN run MANY different IP addresses on a single 
> copy of Xitami, demanding to be able to run two copies seems greedy. 
> (Specially for free.)
> 
> Yet clearly there is IP:Port support; just somehow not on the LRWP 
> frill. Probably an oversight by the developer. Well, it IS a technology 
> demo, not promised to be all things to all people. And it appears the 
> community didn't notice this oddity for many years; how "essential" can 
> it be?
> 
> Xitami NT-Service source code IS available. And it is darn clean stuff. 
> Knowing the bug location, any half-fast C programmer should be able to 
> find the function call and the oversight. (Or, since "nobody" uses LRWP, 
> simply lose the whole LRWP call.)
> 
> Nearly a decade ago, I was able to build Xitami from source. I'm not so 
> clever anymore, or I've grown smart enough to have lost all my MS-C 
> compiler disks.  I'm a user, not a coder. Do we have any coders here, or 
> just users? And coders who want to spend time on this odd-horse problem?
> 
> I think the xitami.wikidot.com site says it all. There are NO edits, 
> ever, not even the glaring typo in Pieter's introduction ("not" for 
> "now"). I just fixed that, and added Magnus's comments.... but 45 days 
> with __NO__ community input means nobody has an oar in the water.
> 
>   -PRR
> 
> --
> Xitami Users Mailing List -- For Xitami support
> To unsubscribe: http://lists.xitami.org/mailman/listinfo/xitami
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.xitami.org/pipermail/xitami/attachments/20080326/7939884c/attachment.htm