On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2006-08-15T09:36:19, Alan Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > And, unfortunately it would confuse a lot of people, since the IP > > addresses wouldn't have interface names. Evidence suggests that would > > confuse a lot of people -- and other scripts. > > But, the addresses being named ethX:Y on Linux has been depreciated > since 2.4.
Lars: This sounds like an important consideration for Linux systems. Could you provide us with a background reference (URL) please? Thanks. What's the state of play for other OSes? For Solaris, I'm not aware of even the existence of anything other than visible "le8:9" format. > And, the numbers assigned by IPaddr might not even be consistent across > different nodes. > > Scripts which "miss" IPs which don't have a label on Linux are already > badly broken, the error just occurs less frequently. So are you saying that Linux good practice is to attach a label on Linux? A unique label? Thereby making each logical interface uniquely named? If so, the result of such good practice would be logically similar to the traditionally named "eth0:1, eth0:2, eth0:3, ... eth0:<n>", wouldn't it? (Just with possibly different labels after the ":".) Further, it would be wise for our heartbeat scripts to have _default_ (possibly override-able) behaviour which applied a naming scheme, wouldn't it? -- : David Lee I.T. Service : : Senior Systems Programmer Computer Centre : : Durham University : : http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.d.lee/ South Road : : Durham DH1 3LE : : Phone: +44 191 334 2752 U.K. : _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
