Multiple ftpd daemons

[loco_vikide]

Cheers to All,

I just wonder if nowadays it is possible to run on the same server, multiple ftpd daeomons which each daemon has its own dedicated port.

If it is possible, could you point me to a howto url.

Thanks,
Chris

[Steven E. Protter]

Shalom,

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

[loco_vikide]

Hi SEP,

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.

Regards.

[Court Campbell]

My question is why you would want to do this?

[Steven E. Protter]

Shalom,

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

[loco_vikide]

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.

Regards,

[Ivan Krastev]

Check here for proftpd multiple daemons - http://www.proftpd.org/docs/howto/ConfigurationTricks.html

regards,
ivan

[Steven E. Protter · Accepted solution]

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

[Ivan Krastev]

vsftp as well - http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/en-US/Reference_Guide/s2-ftp-vsftpd-start-multi.html

What is your ftp server daemon?

regards,
ivan

[Steven Schweda]

> [...] 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.

[loco_vikide]

SEP & Ivan - Thanks for the info.

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.

Best Regards

[Court Campbell]

loco,

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.

[loco_vikide]

Court,

>[...]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.

[Steven Schweda]

> I asked the question because [...]

Apparently that's too complex a reason in
this situation.

> [...] Unconciously, you underestimate
> people's knowledge. [...]

Amazing.

As this example illustrates so well, a low
estimate is not automatically an
underestimate.

[Court Campbell]

loco, you have rarely helped anyone in the forums since you joined in 1999. Give me a break.

[loco_vikide]

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.

[loco_vikide]

Closed.

[Court Campbell]

You are a douche.

[loco_vikide]

It's so sad to see smart people with such arrogance and immaturity ...

[Steven Schweda]

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's so sad to see [...]

Yup. It sure is.

[loco_vikide]

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.

Gosh, this is getting real old ...

[Steven Schweda]

> So please keep your ignorance, [...]

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.