On 03/02/09 20:49, michael schuster wrote:
> Kacheong Poon wrote:
>> Michael Schuster wrote:
>>> On 02/25/09 15:46, Michael Schuster wrote:
>>>
>>>> since there's been no other comments, I'll proceed as follows:
>>>>
>>>> - remove the "serverID" keyword again.
>>>> - since the base of the serverID is now the SG name, remove the
>>>> ability to use the hostname as (base) serverID.
>>>> - (this is according to the initial plan) modify commands which
>>>> used to manipulate servers by address to now handle server IDs.
>>>
>>> Would it be better to not only change the commands to accept server
>>> IDs instead of IP addresses, but also change the *keyword* from
>>> "server" to something else, so there's no (well ... less) confusion:
>>> so instead of:
>>
>>
>> Isn't the serverID (base + a number) assigned by the system?
>> And the number part may possibly change when the same server
>> is removed and then added back. Correct? If the above are
>> true, then an admin may not know the "current" serverID and
>> it means that requiring a serverID to be specified can be
>> problematic.
>
> ahem ... the whole notion of the server ID was created to have
> something other than the ip address to manipulate servers with. What
> do you suggested we do?
>
> Michael
Michael,
What do you require the user to specify in server id ( basename,
basename + number). I thought at one point you had decided that the
basename and the number will be asigned by the system, with the basename
being the server group name( and that the mapping of serverid and IP
address would be listed in list-servergreoup command). Have you changed
your mind on that ?
Sangeeta
