On 04/08/2010 02:51 PM, Benjamin Scott wrote:
>I would think an alias (CNAME) to "smtp" would be easier still...;-)
There's nothing to alias it to, that's all the vm does, so that's what
it's called. The physical host will have a different IP & MAC.
Besides, MX records need to point to A re
Mark Komarinski writes:
> Maybe I'm not understanding the issue, but isn't the above why queuing
> systems were made? We're using a dirt-old version of Platform LSF and
> it already solves the 'running on heterogeneous systems distributed
> across an arbitrary number of nodes' problem. While re
On 04/08/2010 03:13 PM, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
> Tom Buskey writes:
>
>
>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> The problem that I had was that I frequently had to deal with the
>>> situation of "this particular problem only really efficiently runs on
>>> 1, 4
Tom Buskey writes:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
> > The problem that I had was that I frequently had to deal with the
> > situation of "this particular problem only really efficiently runs on
> > 1, 4, or 16 nodes in the cluster" or "this problem only really
> > effic
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> For me, it's easier to remember that 'smtp' is on 'borlaug' than 'vm3'.
I would think an alias (CNAME) to "smtp" would be easier still... ;-)
-- Ben
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discus
On 04/08/2010 01:10 PM, Benjamin Scott wrote:
>As Mark Komarinski already mentioned, it's always a very good idea
> to have generic service names for roles, and alias those names to the
> machines filling the role.
And, I've noticed that with the rise of virtualization the role names
are once
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Shawn O'Shea wrote:
> I've always felt that at a minimum servers deserve real names.
It really depends on the environment. The more commoditized things
are, the less sense it makes to have fancy names. If you've got a 100
node server farm for some massive web
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Kevin D. Clark
wrote:
>
> Benjamin Scott writes:
>
> > I remember a shared login script at UNH which defined various names,
> > so you could do things like:
> >
> > for H in $DWARVES ; do ... ; done
> >
> > Makes sense to put something like that in /etc/pr
Benjamin Scott writes:
> I remember a shared login script at UNH which defined various names,
> so you could do things like:
>
> for H in $DWARVES ; do ... ; done
>
> Makes sense to put something like that in /etc/profile or whatever,
> if you're doing to use the fancy name strategy.
I've always felt that at a minimum servers deserve real names. The first
naming convention I saw was on my first Unix account, SunOS boxes in CS at
University of Hartford, named after movie computers (hal, skynet). At a
previous job, we had HP-UX servers named after characters in Johnny Quest
(rac
On 04/08/2010 09:31 AM, Kevin D. Clark wrote:
> I used to work on a parallel computer whose compute nodes were named
> after stars. So, whenever I needed to do something to all of the
> nodes in the cluster I'd have to write code like:
>
>for H in antares atria avior sirius \
> reg
On 04/07/2010 11:42 PM, David Hardy wrote:
> Yes, md, I remember, as do many or all of us, the same bunch of names
> for the systems, usually either from the Snow White gang, or Lord of
> the Rings, or Hitchhiker's Guide. Them were the daze. Now our
> brilliant successors name them with string
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Kevin D. Clark
wrote:
> So, whenever I needed to do something to all of the
> nodes in the cluster I'd have to write code like:
>
> for H in antares atria avior sirius ...
I remember a shared login script at UNH which defined various names,
so you could do thin
Tom Buskey writes:
> Because we can't keep track of 100 systems & what they do in our head. But
> using a naming scheme means you can script it. We don't really care about
> the names otherwise. Oh, and only one name because if there's another name,
> we'll get a ticket to fix it by the name w
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Tom Buskey wrote:
> Because we can't keep track of 100 systems & what they do in our head.
Yah. At $WORK, desktops and laptops have generic names (a static
prefix followed by a number), because they're commodities,
interchangeable and uninteresting. We only hav
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 11:42 PM, David Hardy wrote:
> Yes, md, I remember, as do many or all of us, the same bunch of names for
> the systems, usually either from the Snow White gang, or Lord of the Rings,
> or Hitchhiker's Guide. Them were the daze. Now our brilliant successors
> name them with
Walt, Mickey, Minnie, Sleepy, and friends... Oh, yes, and I remember that
somehow Satan (ran out of Disney names...) had a vote to make a quorum for
the cluster, which was a huge headache to find. Satan, of course, was on
the far end of the building from Walt (obviously only Walt was *supposed* to
Yes, md, I remember, as do many or all of us, the same bunch of names for
the systems, usually either from the Snow White gang, or Lord of the Rings,
or Hitchhiker's Guide. Them were the daze. Now our brilliant successors
name them with strings of alphanumeric characters the provenance of which
o
>EasyNET was around in the glorious '80s, too!
uucp(1) - Unix to Unix Copy
decvax!maddog - who needs any stinking domain names?
And surely you *name* your computer systems!
"shaman", "guru", "shamet", "wicca" - my systems all have *names*
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs! (sneezy, dopey, doc,
True enuff; and I made a little boo-boo: EasyNET was around in the
glorious '80s, too! We were running VMS, natch, and little old me got
jammed up behind a couple of posts I made there concerning contemporary
international politics, about which I will say no more, as I don't wish to
have the rep
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 2:13 PM, David Hardy wrote:
> And let's not forget EasyNET, people, at DEC, back in the glorious '90s.
Heck, back then, everyone had a cool name for their own network. ;-)
-- Ben Scott @ FidoNet 1:324/127.4
___
gnhlug-discuss
*And let's not forget EasyNET, people, at DEC, back in the glorious '90s. *
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> > Actually ARPANET, while a DOD sponsored network, was a way to connect
> > universities so they could sha
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> Actually ARPANET, while a DOD sponsored network, was a way to connect
> universities so they could share research. I'm over generalizing, but it
> wasn't strictly an internal military thing.
Right, I didn't mean ARPANET was used by DoD onl
On 04/07/2010 09:38 AM, Benjamin Scott wrote:
> Since ARPANET was nominally the domain of the US military, other
> networks (like NSFNET) were started, using the same standards, but
> with different nominal jurisdiction. Gateways were established.
> Eventually the various networks converged into
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Ric Werme wrote:
> The follow on to the ARPAnet, the
> Internet, started around 1980 with the publishing of the core Internet
> protocols and porting classics like the new (1973) FTP and Telnet protocols
> and new ones like NFS and the rest of ONC-RPC.
I wasn't
25 matches
Mail list logo
