Hi Lars, > Yes. > hostname (-s, -f) and uname differ in that > uname -n just does one syscall (uname), > and hostname (typically) does a gethostname(), > then a gethostbyname(), the result of the latter > heavily influenced by whatever is in your nsswitch, > resolv and other .conf, as well as what may be listed > in /etc/hosts, and the order of those entries ;)
I noticed. So comparing uname and hostname -s isn't a good idea. I feared that. > Instead of doing clever guesswork, > surely those: > > > http://www.aviosys.com/ip_power_9258hp.html > > > > PS: there are others too in this category of devices: > > > > http://www.server-rack-online.com/cw-2h2-c20.html > > can be configured to use "arbitrary" names? As I stated before, the label is limited to 15 characters. Those fill up fast. That is why I am doing the whole guessing in the first place. Using the short hostname seemed a better idea than just cutting off the first 15 characters of the full hostname. It is much easier to reconstruct the full name. > so if your uname -n does contain dots (FQDN), > you use that as label in the power switch, > and if not, there you are. > > You just have to get it right then, > and the RA does not need to guess. I could just check the "uname -n" for dots in the RA. Still a guess, but a better one. Offcourse, I could just move away from the whole port detection and just require a parameter that maps the ports to the hostnames. I am not a big fan of that though. J. _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
