ftp can be configured to listen on a different port.
Exact instructions would depend on the Linux distributions.
Running two ftp daemons on the same system at the same time, probably would be difficult.
sshd on the other hand might be configured for one daemon to listen on several different ports. See internal documentation on sshd_config or ssh_config
SEP
Steven E Protter Owner of ISN Corporation http://isnamerica.com http://hpuxconsulting.com Sponsor: http://hpux.ws Twitter: http://twitter.com/hpuxlinux Founder http://newdatacloud.com
Thanks for replying. I am particularly interested in feasibility of running multiple ftp deamons on a same server. You stated that it can be difficult. So the question is, is it technically doable? If so, do you know how to or know where to look for howto info.
"The difference between me and you? I will read the man page." and "Respect the hat." and "You could just do a search on ITRC, you don't need to start a thread on a topic that's been answered 100 times already." Oh, and "What. no points???"
No I do not believe running two ftp daemons is tecnically feasible.
You can however use vmware/xen/kvm virtualization and run an entire system for this purpose. That will work.
SEP
Steven E Protter Owner of ISN Corporation http://isnamerica.com http://hpuxconsulting.com Sponsor: http://hpux.ws Twitter: http://twitter.com/hpuxlinux Founder http://newdatacloud.com
SEP - Thanks for your input. I don't think is technically feasible to run multiple ftpd daemons on one single OS image. But I am still exploring the possibility.
FTP daemon has limited buffer cache. My users only want to use ftp deamon (they are not willing to use anything else, which is silly from them)to transfer large amount of data within a contrainst timeline. FTP daemon buffer cache is not large enough to handle their jobs quickly. That how it came the idea of running multiple ftpd daemons on a same OS image to improve the transfer time. We are using mutltiple NICs with multiple dedicated IPs on same server, but the bottle neck is at the ftpd daemon level.
Court Campbell - Please contribute your answer to the question if you could without sarcastically questioning why people do or explore certain things for their oww purpose. The forum is to help each others out with their own needs, which I occasionly helped out others uncondiontianally.
True if you switch to proftpd, you may be able to run two. The cost of doing that is less than of setting up a virtual machine.
SEP
Steven E Protter Owner of ISN Corporation http://isnamerica.com http://hpuxconsulting.com Sponsor: http://hpux.ws Twitter: http://twitter.com/hpuxlinux Founder http://newdatacloud.com
> [...] without sarcastically questioning why > people do or explore certain things [...]
Some people don't seem to know sarcasm, or its absence, from a hole in the ground.
I would have asked the same thing. In about the same way. It's fairly common for someone to ask how to implement some sub-ideal "solution" to a problem which has a much better, different solution. Asking why you wish to do what you wish to do is about the only way to determine if what you wish to do makes any sense at all. If this be sarcasm, make the most of it.
> No I do not believe running two ftp > daemons is tecnically feasible.
I don't see why not, but it's not clear that a typical FTP client could find a server on a non-standard port. I also don't immediately see why you'd want to do it.
> [...] FTP daemon buffer cache is not large > enough [...]
And you determined this how, exactly?
> Oct 8, 2009 19:19:54 GMT 0 pts
Getting zero points from some people is as great a reward as getting ten points from someone whose opinion has some actual value. And that's not sarcasm, either.
Steven - Firstly, thanks for your input. I appreciate it.
Secondly, please mind your own business. Allow me to remind you that this forum is not intended for debating on personal opions or personal perceptions. People deserve points based on their input. People get zero point based on responses that provides no value other than trying to outsmart the requester. My initial question was very simple: "Can I technically run multiple FTPd daemons on a same server?" So the answer would have been YES or NO then the subject matter could be elaborated further with the question: "Why would you do that?"
Please learn from others, especially from SEP who first responded like a PRO. There is a reason why SEP is now part of the Elite team based on his points track record.
Thank you all for your assistance. I am good to move on with my tasks.
You read way to much into my question. I personally don't care what you do, if it makes you happy. I asked the question because many people of this site seem to try to make simple things more complex. If I know what you want to do, or accomplish, I can better help. You may have not actually needed multiple ftp daemons to accomplish your goal. But it's nice to know that you can take a simple question as a truly sarcastic remark.
"The difference between me and you? I will read the man page." and "Respect the hat." and "You could just do a search on ITRC, you don't need to start a thread on a topic that's been answered 100 times already." Oh, and "What. no points???"
>[...]I asked the question because many people of this site seem to try to make simple things more complex[...]
You summarized it well. Unconciously, you underestimate people's knowledge. Sometimes people do things in a complex way not because they don't know or they want to. Sometimes they have to do it 'cause they are mandated to do so even it's against their will.
As a member of the forum, I would never question why people wants to do things the way they want. I only offer info, suggestions and alternative solutions to other members.
I apologize for any mis-understandings if I have read too much into your question. I guess everyone has his/her own manner. Good or bad is subjective.
loco, you have rarely helped anyone in the forums since you joined in 1999. Give me a break.
"The difference between me and you? I will read the man page." and "Respect the hat." and "You could just do a search on ITRC, you don't need to start a thread on a topic that's been answered 100 times already." Oh, and "What. no points???"
Yes, I did help some people as much as I could. Iand asked only 3 questions since 1999. FYI - On the track record, I helped more than I asked. So find out more before you jump the gun. Your attitude is very questionable.
I joined way back for knowlege enhancement and learning. It does not mean I worked on subject matter nor have expertise like you guys.
Steven & Court - You guys are amazing. You do have big ego and a lot of time on your hands.
Please cut the crap and move on. There is no more points to pursue this.
Once again, Steven mind your own business. You seem not getting that, don't you. There is no need for you to start a three-way dispute since nothing was initially addresed to you.
"The difference between me and you? I will read the man page." and "Respect the hat." and "You could just do a search on ITRC, you don't need to start a thread on a topic that's been answered 100 times already." Oh, and "What. no points???"
I'm trying to mind my own business, but I have one last question.
> [...] Sometimes people do things in a > complex way not because they don't know or > they want to. Sometimes they have to do it > 'cause they are mandated to do so even it's > against their will.
Does this mean that you knew that you were pursuing a "solution" which might be completely ineffective, if not downright foolish, and you _still_ think that people who asked you why you wanted to do it were underestimating your knowledge?
It also so sad to see people foolishly assuming that all working environments are the same. I guess some of people do lack of exposures dealing with large corporate red tapes, unreasonalble ignorant groups of demanding users, politics, and so on ...
So please keep your ignorance, comments and ego to yourself and move on. This is not constructive. If you are so bored and looking for something to argue on, there are some forums designated for that purpose.
I was trying to reduce my ignorance, but I can't seem to get a straight answer to a simple question here.
> [...] lack of exposures dealing with large > corporate red tapes, [...]
With my weak psychic powers, I didn't realize that these were part of the original problem. I must have missed these considerations in the original problem statement. Perhaps you should have included more info on the constraints if you didn't wish to be questioned about them.
> This is not constructive.
It could be, but some folks seem to be impervious to criticism.
