New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Second instance of BOS unable to start
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Second instance of BOS unable to start
 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
AdamC View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2008
Location: United States
Posts: 20 		Post Options Post Options   Quote AdamC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Second instance of BOS unable to start
    Posted: 30-Sep-2010 at 3:00pm
I am attempting to run 2-3 instances of BOS (Windows Service) on the same server.  The first instance is configured to listen on port 9009, the second on port 9010 and the third on port 9011.  I can start any one of these services by themselves just fine, but I cannot start another while the first is running.  In other words, I cannot run two of the services at the same time.  When I attempt to start a BOS service after one is already running, the following error message is logged to the event viewer (please see below).  It is saying that "there is already a listener on IP endpoint 0.0.0.0:9922".  Can I specify this port somewhere in each BOS config file so that I won't get this conflict?  If so, what is the setting?  Hopefully I'm overlooking something obvious.  Thanks!


Service cannot be started. System.ServiceModel.AddressAlreadyInUseException: There is already a listener on IP endpoint 0.0.0.0:9922.  Make sure that you are not trying to use this endpoint multiple times in your application and that there are no other applications listening on this endpoint. ---> System.Net.Sockets.SocketException: Only one usage of each socket address (protocol/network address/port) is normally permitted
   at System.Net.Sockets.Socket.DoBind(EndPoint endPointSnapshot, SocketAddress socketAddress)
   at System.Net.Sockets.Socket.Bind(EndPoint localEP)
   at System.ServiceModel.Channels.SocketConnectionListener.Listen()
   --- End of inner exception stack trace ---
   at System.ServiceModel.Channels.SocketConnectionListener.Listen()
   at System.ServiceModel.Channels.ConnectionAcceptor.StartAccepting()
   at System.ServiceModel.Channels.ExclusiveTcpTransportManager.OnOpen()
   at System.ServiceModel.Channels.TransportManager.Open(TransportChannelListener channelListener)
   at System.ServiceModel.Channels....
Back to Top
sbelini View Drop Down
IdeaBlade
IdeaBlade
Avatar

Joined: 13-Aug-2010
Location: Oakland
Posts: 786 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sbelini Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2010 at 4:42pm
Hi Adam,
 
You can specify the port in the logging element. If not explicitly set, it will use the default 9922:
 
  .
  .
  .
  <ideablade.configuration version="6.00" xmlns="http://schemas.ideablade.com/2010/IdeaBladeConfig">
    <logging logFile="DebugLog.xml" port="9923" />
    .
    .
    .
 
Regards,
   Silvio.
Back to Top
AdamC View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2008
Location: United States
Posts: 20 		Post Options Post Options   Quote AdamC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2010 at 8:26am
Thanks for the quick reply.  However, I have logging commented-out so that a file won't be written.  So is there a way to specify another port if i don't want to turn-on logging?  I'm not sure why the logging service would be listening on a port when it is commented and not being used.



<!--<logging logFile="DebugLog.xml" />-->
Back to Top
sbelini View Drop Down
IdeaBlade
IdeaBlade
Avatar

Joined: 13-Aug-2010
Location: Oakland
Posts: 786 		Post Options Post Options   Quote sbelini Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2010 at 9:48am
You can turn of the logging, but you still need the logging element as we have a TracePublisher which actually always publishes trace messages (and uses port 9922 if not otherwise explicitly set).
 
In order to turn logging off, set the logFile attribute to empty string:
 
<logging logFile="" port="9923" />
 
 
Back to Top
AdamC View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2008
Location: United States
Posts: 20 		Post Options Post Options   Quote AdamC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2010 at 11:36am
Yes, that did it.  I didn't realize I could set the file name attribute to an empty string.  Thanks so much for the information! 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down