ok...<div><br></div><div>still getting</div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><div>March 16, 2012 @ 08:54:01PM: ~</div></div><div><div>[jstoner@rabbitmq-small02-dev]> sudo rabbitmqctl cluster rabbit@rabbitmq-small01-dev</div>
</div><div><div>Clustering node 'rabbit@rabbitmq-small02-dev' with ['rabbit@rabbitmq-small01-dev'] ...</div></div><div><div>Error: {no_running_cluster_nodes,['rabbit@rabbitmq-small01-dev'],</div></div>
<div><div> ['rabbit@rabbitmq-small01-dev']}</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I changed the rabbitmq.config to</div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div><div>[</div></div><div><div> {kernel,</div></div><div><div> [{inet_dist_listen_min, [some number]},</div></div><div><div> {inet_dist_listen_max, [another number]}]</div>
</div><div><div> }</div></div><div><div>].</div></div></blockquote><div><div><br></div><div>on both servers, and restarted.</div><div><br></div><div>I think we have the right ports open now. </div><div><br>
</div><div>The erlang cookie matches.</div><div><br></div><div>seeing traffic on 4369, but not the other ports.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What else could be wrong?</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Michael Cumings <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mcumings@narrativescience.com" target="_blank">mcumings@narrativescience.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">So what is the considerations on having 5 over 10 or 1? Is there a reasonable criteria that can be used to determine what an appropriate number of ports that should be allocated?<div>
<div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Emile Joubert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:emile@rabbitmq.com" target="_blank">emile@rabbitmq.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
Hi John,<br>
<br>
I assume that you established the reason for the clustering problems<br>
encountered earlier was due to firewall configuration.<br>
<br>
On 16/03/12 17:25, John Stoner wrote:<br>
> We're looking to open fewer ports, not more./ /Is there a minimum we<br>
<div>> could do? Would one work, or would it break something else?<br>
<br>
</div>One port is possible (then inet_dist_listen_min = inet_dist_listen_max),<br>
but a small number like 5 is more common. Avoid the ephemeral port range<br>
when you make your selection.<br>
<div><br>
> Also, we have these ports open to all TCP. In the spirit of securing<br>
> our systems, I guess we could open 4369 only to the IPs of the other<br>
> machines in the cluster. Is that a good idea? Can you think of more<br>
> firewall restrictions to add?<br>
<br>
</div>As discussed previously and above, you need to open at least one port in<br>
addition to the one used by the port mapper daemon. You are free to add<br>
further firewall restrictions, as long as all clusternodes are<br>
accessible from all other clusternodes on the relevant ports, as<br>
discussed here:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.rabbitmq.com/clustering.html#firewall" target="_blank">http://www.rabbitmq.com/clustering.html#firewall</a><br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
<br>
-Emile<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
rabbitmq-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:rabbitmq-discuss@lists.rabbitmq.com" target="_blank">rabbitmq-discuss@lists.rabbitmq.com</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.rabbitmq.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rabbitmq-discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>blogs:<br><a href="http://johnstoner.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">http://johnstoner.wordpress.com/</a><br>'In knowledge is power; in wisdom, humility.' <br>
</div></div>