On 2018-07-24 07:28, G.W. Haywood via BackupPC-users wrote:
Hi there,
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018, Tim Evans wrote:
I'm retiring the oldest PC among my BackupPC clients, and replacing it
with a new one. Would like to use the same hostname for the new
machine, but think this might confuse things with BackupPC.
I'd recommend that you don't do it. BackupPC is not the only thing
that will get confused. You will too. Examples below.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2018, Michael Stowe wrote:
2. Login to the configuration folder
cd /etc/BackupPC
2. Change the host file to the corresponding one :
vi hosts
*change old_host to new_host*
Examples:
1: There are two '2.'s in there. Has this been tested?
No, the email was not tested before being sent. Short of QA resources
to test emails, it was decided to send it without committing to a full
QA cycle because the risk was low. As it turns out, the HTML codes for
"enumerate" aren't consistent among email clients, and different people
may have experienced different numbering.
However, the steps to renaming a host are sound.
2: In some installations the directory structure is different and the
configuration isn't in /etc/BackupPC. Debian packages for example use
/etc/backuppc/ for configuration and /var/lib/backuppc/ for data.
I generally assume that people are capable of replacing directory
examples with real directories. I also assumed that the Debian was not
involved because it or apt-get had not been mentioned half a dozen
times.
3: You need to *keep* old_host and *add* new_host, otherwise the
confusingly-named old_host (it's really old_NAME) won't get backed up
any more.
What would you say the difference between the name of a host and a named
host are, exactly? It might be helpful to elaborate on why "NAME" is
better than "host," to help explain the distinction you're drawing. (Do
you name your hosts "host?" Or "NAME?")
4: Some things on old_host will probably still think they're on
old_host even after you've renamed it to new_(host|name|whatever).
This probably deserves more explanation as well, because without any
specific examples, I'm going to call nonsense on this. This isn't
magic.
5: DHCP servers and things that rely on MAC addresses can get confused.
In what way?
6: Nameservers and things that rely on IP addresses can get confused.
Again, in what way? Anthropomorphizing DNS is pretty weird to begin
with, but imagining that changing some hosts around will send one into a
tailspin of dementia seems beyond the pale. You do know that DNS
servers are meant to associate IP addresses with names, right? This is
what they do?
--
Sure, it's simplest just to give every host its own name for the life of
the host and leave it at that, and sure, I recommend it, but there are
many use cases where this is desirable, and spreading FUD isn't
particularly helpful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
BackupPC-users mailing list
BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net
List: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users
Wiki: http://backuppc.wiki.sourceforge.net
Project: http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
