I agree, it's really annoying. The hostname resolves to "(none)" , which I assume means there isn't one set.
I'll do some testing on the maximum size. Ambari does a test when it starts that the hostname resolves to the machines ip and refuses to start if it doesn't. For softlayer I currently use the binddns entity to make the hostnames resolve, although I'm finding this a bit hit and miss - sometimes all my entities get configured properly and sometimes one or two won't have a dns entry - I assume this is a timing issue but I haven't looked into it at the moment. On 31 Jan 2015 23:55, "Aled Sage" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Duncan, > > That's annoying, and surprising! Is there no hostname set at all, or a > non-unique hostname? > > Do you know if the previous max length of 30 is the cut-off for hostname > being set on the VM? Maybe we could choose a number significantly bigger > than 30 but still not too big? > > For Ambari, does it need a hostname that can be resolved from other VMs or > just a non-empty hostname? > (in some clouds for some apps, we ended up running a DNS server so that > hostnames would all resolve). > > Aled > > > On 30/01/2015 16:51, Duncan Grant wrote: > >> Without a maximum name length (see >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-brooklyn/pull/481) softlayer VMs are >> created without a hostname. >> Under these circumstances Ambari refuses to install. >> >> Should I implement something specific to the ambari entities so that they >> can work round this or do we need to find a more general fix? >> >> I'd really like to keep the long names as then I can tell this difference >> between my vms and those provisioned by Duncan. >> >> Regards >> >> Duncan >> >> >
