Thank you for replying Lars! On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 12:12 +0200, Lars Ellenberg wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 08:59:36AM -0400, Paul Smith wrote: > > Hi; anyone have any thoughts about the "nodeinfo" file in modern > > heartbeat implementations? > > Subject: "/etc/ha.d/nodeinfo"--supported? > Short answer: probably not.
Based on this information I agree, this is not sufficient for me. I'll simply have to continue to script ways to automatically bring down the cluster, edit the various configuration files to rewrite the hostnames, etc. and try to make this as robust as possible whenever any hostname needs to be changed. > Why fake the uname for the cluster? > Why not fake it for "that other application", > which thinks it needs to depend on it? > Or maybe even just add some entry into /etc/hosts, > so the reverse lookup for "that other application" > returns whatever is expected? Well, the thing to be clear about is that I'm not creating a cluster primarily for the purpose of running heartbeat etc. The HA software is just there as a necessary infrastructure for delivering the services that my customers actually want; the only way they care about HA is that their important services are always available. As long as that is true they'd prefer to never even know there's HA software running. They certainly don't want to have it take over a critical piece of identifying information for their hardware. They care about things like SNMP, SMTP, web services, database services, etc., all of which make the hostname of the system visible in one way or another, and so all of which are impacted by this requirement. Having critical system infrastructure that requires knowing unique and immutable identifiers, such as HA node referencing, make use of information which is intended for a completely different purpose and which is designed to be changeable at any time, like hostnames, is so clearly a mismatch that I'm not sure what to say to convince the developers of this if it's not already obvious. > Oh, and you certainly do NOT want to use 2.1.2. Unfortunately as I mentioned I'm using the standard software that comes with Red Hat 6.3. Adding my own customized builds of a different version would be a significant amount of red tape in terms of support, etc. that I'm not interested in taking on, unless there are specific issues with the Red Hat version that will be even more difficult to deal with. Thanks again for your response! _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
