On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Jesse Becker <haw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:35, Brad Nicholes <bnicho...@novell.com> wrote:
>> How well does this fit into the previous discussions of using a GUID to 
>> identify a box rather than an IP or FQDN?  Are aliasing and GUID identifiers 
>> related or are they two separate issues?
> I think that is a separate, but related, discussion.  Perhaps I'm
> wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus about using
> GUIDs vs. FQDN vs. IPs vs. something else (again, someone correct me
> if I'm wrong).  Maybe we should open that discussion again?

why a separate discussion? You're adding a config option which you're
free to set to whatever you think and that to me covers all cases, you
could set it to the hostname, an ip or a GUID. Personally I find that
in large infrastructure naming machines meaningfully is a lost game,
the host itself is more or less irrelevant and what matters is the
service associated to it, so I'd assign a GUID myself and maintain the
association with the service somewhere else, maybe as a metric itself.
On the other hand for the small shop host names are a pretty decent
approach to map your infrastructure so they would prolly want to use
that as an identifier. Either way having it as an option is a safe way
of handling it and avoids surprises at the gmetad end (I don't like
this thing that the received resolves the ip of the sender to decide
its name).

"Behind every great man there's a great backpack" - B.

Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA
is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your
developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay 
ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now!
Ganglia-developers mailing list

Reply via email to