tahoe-lafs/topfiles/2794.change

The little-used "control port" now uses a separate (ephemeral) Tub. This
means the FURL changes each time the node is restarted, and it only listens
on the loopback (127.0.0.1) interface, on a random port. As the control port
is only used by some automated tests (check_memory, check_speed), this
shouldn't affect anyone.

The slightly-more-used "log port" now also uses a separate (ephemeral) Tub,
with the same consequences. The lack of a stable (and externally-reachable)
logport.furl means it is no longer possible to use `flogtool tail FURL`
against a distant Tahoe server, however `flogtool tail
.../nodedir/private/logport.furl` still works just fine (and is the more
common use case anyways). We might bring back the ability to configure the
port and location of the logport in the future, if there is sufficient
demand, but for now it seems better to avoid the complexity.
Split control and log to two separate tubs, remove control knobs. This also removes the tahoe.cfg keys that would have configured the control-port. And it deletes the logport.furl file before asking the Tub to re-create it, because we're now using an ephemeral Tub (so we're not persisting the private key, so the tubid will change each time). closes ticket:2794 2016-07-07 02:47:00 +00:00			`The little-used "control port" now uses a separate (ephemeral) Tub. This`
			`means the FURL changes each time the node is restarted, and it only listens`
			`on the loopback (127.0.0.1) interface, on a random port. As the control port`
			`is only used by some automated tests (check_memory, check_speed), this`
			`shouldn't affect anyone.`

			`The slightly-more-used "log port" now also uses a separate (ephemeral) Tub,`
			`with the same consequences. The lack of a stable (and externally-reachable)`
			logport.furl means it is no longer possible to use `flogtool tail FURL`
			against a distant Tahoe server, however `flogtool tail
			.../nodedir/private/logport.furl` still works just fine (and is the more
			`common use case anyways). We might bring back the ability to configure the`
			`port and location of the logport in the future, if there is sufficient`
			`demand, but for now it seems better to avoid the complexity.`