On 2010-05-05 12:03, Dag Stenstad wrote:
>> that's a good idea, though I'm not sure if I like the implementation.
>> Rather than specify "parent_domain", why not introduce a boolean
>> parameter which if set, causes the migration_uri to be constructed from
>> a host(1) lookup of $OCF_RESKEY_CRM_meta_migrate_target, so you retrieve
>> the FQDN from that?
>> Or maybe it's a good idea to always do that?
>
> Yes, I agree that the implementation might not be the best. It seems
> like you might mean doing something like this?
>
> target_node="$OCF_RESKEY_CRM_meta_migrate_target"
> if ocf_is_true $OCF_RESKEY_migrate_use_fqdn; then
> target_node=$(host $OCF_RESKEY_CRM_meta_migrate_target | \
> awk '{ print $1; }')
> fi
>
> Alternatively, one could also do something like this to always use the
> local domain:
>
> target_node="$OCF_RESKEY_CRM_meta_migrate_target"
> if ocf_is_true $OCF_RESKEY_migrate_use_domain; then
> target_node=${OCF_RESKEY_CRM_meta_migrate_target}.$(hostname -d)
> fi
>
> To be honest, I'm not sure wich one I prefer. What I want to accomplish
> is to have a FQDN for migration, so that my SSL certificates match..
>
> Opinions? Both solves my problem.I'd prefer the first option. You might have a cluster consisting of alice.foo and bob.bar. I concede that's far-fetched, but option #1 takes care of that while #2 does not, and neither seems to be causing much pain. Cheers, Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
