JBoss dynamically assigning a TCP port

[jason1]

Hi!

Our sys admin is trying to secure the ports used by JBoss on two boxes on which we host a clustered JBoss 3.2.4RC2 app. The boxes are RedHat Enterprise with JDK 1.4.2. After a port scan, we see both JBoss instances have the same ports except for one which seems to be dynamically assigned; thus, different. Can anyone tell me what JBoss service might be doing this and which MBean property to set to prevent JBoss from dynamically assigning one?

tia,
Jason

tocrhstg01
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.76:8009 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 28225/java
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.76:1098 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 28225/java
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.76:1099 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 28225/java
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.76:1100 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 28225/java
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.76:8080 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 28225/java
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.76:8083 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 28225/java
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.76:48120 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 28225/java
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.76:4444 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 28225/java
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.76:4445 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 28225/java

tocrhstg02
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.78:8009 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 32167/java
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.78:1098 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 32167/java
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.78:1099 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 32167/java
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.78:1100 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 32167/java
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.78:8080 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 32167/java
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.78:8083 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 32167/java
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.78:35031 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 32167/java
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.78:4444 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 32167/java
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.78:8093 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 32167/java - Just HA-Singleton for JMS, ignore...
tcp 0 0 10.82.60.78:4445 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 32167/java

[jason1]

We found it to be in cluster-service.xml somewhere. When we removed this service xml, it stopped listening on the odd ports.

Now... which MBean and property in cluster-service.xml do we need to specify?

[starksm64]

See the following port list:
http://www.jboss.org/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=UsingJBossBehindAFirewall

Its also questionable to be running a release candidate when there is a final 3.2.4, not to mention 3.2.5, 3.2.6 and 3.2.7 beyond it.

[jason1]

thanks, Scott.

3.2.4RC2 has been solid for our needs since it's release, so we are confident in it, but I'll definitely inquire with our admins about upgrading before we go to prod just to be sure.