David Chevalier wrote:
- It seems that the Scan for Active Servers option is not reporting servers if they are not listening on the default port 4899.
It will scan for servers on nonstand ports on hosts for which you have a connection in your phonebook set to connect on that port.
For example if \\warthog is running rserver3 on port 4898 AND you have a connection to warthog on 4898 defined in your phonebook, it will indicate the presence of the server with a checkmark through warthog's icon.
It may be that predefined connections aren't necessary to find servers running on the default port, but it makes sense that it can't check every possible port, so it apparently checks the port set up in your pre-defined connections and possibly others running on 4899 on the LAN, assuming it has some idea of what the LAN is.
I haven't tried this because I'd have to change several of my servers to listen on the default port, which is not my preferred configuration.
Roman Makarov wrote:
It's not able to see the listening port 4900. It will see the port 4899 either if it's hosted by Radmin 2.2 or 3.0.
Weird, isn't it ?
I've never tried defining two entries with the same IP. I wonder if it's finding the first one for a given IP. you could try reversing the order in which they appear in the phone book. Sort by port #. If that doesn't bring localhost 2 to the top, swap the connection names.
If it finds the one on 4900 but not the one on 4899, my theory is correct: It stops checking a given host (no matter how many entries there are) if it finds a server. This is not the behavior I would expect, but then I don't think it's common to have 2 entries for the same host. Also, I don't run 2.2 anymore. But it is installed so I may fire it up and try some experiments.
I can tell you it finds non-standard ports on hosts running rserver3 becuase I use 'em and it finds 'em.
I have notice this issue. I have 2.2 srv listening on one port and 3.0 srv listening on another. I create a pinhole in my DSL Router to the same address10.X.X.X and included both the 2.2 port and the 3.0 port in that pinhole but I can could not connect to either. I added a secondary IP address to the Nic then created a pinhole to the secondary nic using the 3.0 port and it worked. So 2.2 connects to primary IP using pinhole for 2.2s port and 3.0 connects to the secondary address using a pinhole with 3.0s port. This sounds similar to your issue when scanning for ports. I think it finds the first active port and stops looking.