Project

General

Profile

Actions

Bug #14750

closed

foreman proxy still running on port 8000 needlessly.

Added by Ondřej Pražák almost 8 years ago. Updated over 5 years ago.

Status:
Closed
Priority:
Normal
Category:
-
Target version:
Difficulty:
Triaged:
Fixed in Releases:
Found in Releases:

Description

Cloned from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1248665
Description of problem:

Please see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1237092

templates on the default server were turned off, which is expected. However, foreman-proxy is still listening on port 8000.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

Snap 15

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install satellite
2. `lsof -i :8000`

Actual results:

COMMAND PID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE/OFF NODE NAME
ruby 23526 foreman-proxy 9u IPv4 108908 0t0 TCP *:irdmi (LISTEN)

Expected results:

foreman-proxy should not be listening needlessly on port 8000
Additional info:

Actions #1

Updated by Dominic Cleal almost 8 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Need more information

Can you provide more information? If the foreman_proxy http/http_port parameters are enabled then it will be running on HTTP. What did you set them to?

Actions #2

Updated by Ondřej Pražák almost 8 years ago

Dominic Cleal wrote:

Can you provide more information? If the foreman_proxy http/http_port parameters are enabled then it will be running on HTTP. What did you set them to?

I did not touch them at all. From the BZ ticket I gathered the proxy is running on http 8000 by default and it should not. I reproduced with 'steps to reproduce' and found out the :http_port in /etc/foreman-proxy/settings.yml is not commented out.

Actions #3

Updated by Dominic Cleal almost 8 years ago

  • Project changed from Installer to Katello
  • Status changed from Need more information to New

Moving this to Katello then, perhaps it enables the parameter - foreman-installer does not.

Actions #5

Updated by Ondřej Pražák almost 8 years ago

Thanks for a hint.

Actions #6

Updated by Christian Ehart almost 8 years ago

Small Recommendation, would it not be better to listen on other port like "9000" instead of "9090"? Of course I can do it manually, but a predefined setup would be better...

Reason: Cockpit uses already the port 9090, see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/foreman-users/9090/foreman-users/QEAQjGs1exQ/temrvqXFBQAJ

more details via Google: https://www.google.at/search?q=cockpit+9090&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=7RAZV5CPLKvEgAaokproBw

Actions #7

Updated by Ondřej Pražák almost 8 years ago

Christian Ehart wrote:

Small Recommendation, would it not be better to listen on other port like "9000" instead of "9090"? Of course I can do it manually, but a predefined setup would be better...

Reason: Cockpit uses already the port 9090, see https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/foreman-users/9090/foreman-users/QEAQjGs1exQ/temrvqXFBQAJ

more details via Google: https://www.google.at/search?q=cockpit+9090&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=7RAZV5CPLKvEgAaokproBw

If there is a clash then maybe it would be better to change it. Could you file a new issue?

Actions #8

Updated by The Foreman Bot almost 8 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Ready For Testing
  • Pull request https://github.com/Katello/katello-installer/pull/328 added
Actions #9

Updated by Eric Helms almost 8 years ago

  • translation missing: en.field_release set to 143
Actions #10

Updated by Ondřej Pražák almost 8 years ago

  • Status changed from Ready For Testing to Closed
  • % Done changed from 0 to 100
Actions

Also available in: Atom PDF