David Lee wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Horms wrote:
>
>> Lars Marowsky-Bree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On 2006-08-10T14:27:20, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Though I'd suspect that majority of HB based clusters run on
>>>> Linux, I didn't find IPaddr2 very popular (at least judging by
>>>> the lists).
>>> Most of them probably don't even know about it. Which adds quite nicely
>>> to the point I was making: On Linux, we should use IPaddr2 by default,
>>> or at least the methods used therein, instead of the ifconfig mess,
>>> which is positively ancient and requires us to jump through hoops (and
>>> isn't very robust).
>> Yes, I agree. I think that many people simply don't use it because
>> its not the default. I bet if it was very few of them would complain.
>> And a lot of nice things would suddenlty just work.
>
> On the recent "janitor" thread, this topic also made a little appearance.
>
> I suggested, and Andrew agreed, that it would be preferable to have a
> single name "IPaddr" which 'does the Right Thing' across all OSes.
>
> It would be very poor to have to document something horrible such as:
> "on OS-1 do X; but on OS-2 do Y; however on OS-3 do Z; ..."
>
> As I understand it, then, there would be a single command (say, "IPaddr")
> but whose Linux functionality (which "IPaddr" would detect early) would
> use code from the current "IPaddr2" implementation.
>
> Put another way: logically merge "IPaddr" and "IPaddr2" under a single
> banner "IPaddr", such that the ex-...2 code paths are the default the
> Linux.
>
> OK?
Contrary to the implication given in this thread -- IPaddr and IPaddr2
do NOT do the same thing.
--
Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Openness is the foundation and preservative of friendship... Let me
claim from you at all times your undisguised opinions." - William
Wilberforce
_______________________________________________________
Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev
Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
