Done.
On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 11:38, Brian Finley wrote: > On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 10:29, Sean Dague wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 10:18:32AM -0500, Brian Finley wrote: > > > On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 12:14, Sean Dague wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:49:45AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > At this point I rebooted the system and it came up with the wrong node > > > > > name. > > > > > The "golden" client was n06, the client I had updated was n07, but the node > > > > > name in the login prompt was n06. The file /etc/sysconfig/network had not > > > > > been changed to reflect n07. > > > > > > > > This is probably because the default 'static_dhcp' option was chosen, which > > > > doesn't set the hostname. If dynamic_dhcp or static ip-method is selected, > > > > the hostname would have been set. > > > > > > Do we want to try and fix this prior to the 3.0 release? > > > > > > The proposal for the fix is two-fold: > > > > > > * The first bit is to change static_dhcp and dynamic_dhcp to > > > simply be "dhcp" (and to not mess with the hostname at all). > > > > > > * The second bit is "how do we deal with hostnames?". Certainly > > > the default will be to assign them. > > > > > > The real question is how to deal with them if users don't want them > > > assigned. Do we add a "-blank-hostname" option to getimage? Or a > > > "-set-all-hostnames-to NAME" option (I can see some people wanting a > > > common hostname across a farm especially with an UltraMonkey type > > > solution)? Or do we simply put a comment into the master > > > autoinstall script that looks like: > > > > Currently, there is no provision for blank hostnames on nodes anyway, as > > what happens is the hostname of the golden-client will propogate to all the > > nodes. > > Ok. I think I know when this happened and why. I think it was because > this feature wasn't well understood when that critical bit was removed > from the code (the hostname not being blanked out). > > > Making all the nodes have the same hostname doesn't make any sense > > to me. > > It doesn't in most environments. But in certain LVS configurations, > where redirection is to to MAC addresses of machines in a farm behind > the load balancer, and the destination IP address is changed to a > loopback address (such as 127.0.0.2), it can be useful to have all of > the machines set to have the same hostname. > > > My proposal is: > > * drop static_dhcp all together > > * rename dynamic_dhcp to dhcp > > * don't try to solve the blank hostname issue unless it actually arrises > > (i.e. someone needs it on the list). > > Well, we know that some people are using this -- Dave Lombard for > example (using SystemImager 1.5). > > > If someone is doing something really esoteric with SIS dealing with blank > > hostnames, then we'll deal with it when it comes up. > > It's been a feature in SystemImager for a long time (ever since there > was an -ip-assignment option). > > I understand your proposal and I agree. > > Heres a recap: > > o Get rid of static_dhcp and dynamic_dhcp in favor of simply "dhcp" (and > don't mess with the hostname at all). > o Add these comments to autoinstallscripts. > ################################################################## > # > # Uncomment the line below to leave your hostname blank. Certain > # distributions use this as an indication to take on the hostname > # provided by a DHCP server. The default is to have > # SystemConfigurator assign your clients the hostname that > # corresponds to the IP address the use during the install. > # > #HOSTNAME="" > > > > > -Brian > > > > > Otherwise we are doing > > the wrong things for thousands of people, on the off chance that some > > ancient Red Hat function a) still works b) is used by anyone. > > > > -Sean > > > > -- > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > > > Sean Dague [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dague.net > > > > There is no silver bullet. Plus, werewolves make better neighbors than > > zombies, and they tend to keep the vampire population down. > > _______________________________________________________________________ > -- > --------------------------------------------------- > Brian Elliott Finley http://baldguysoftware.com/ > phone: 214.280.8188 http://systemimager.org/ > --------------------------------------------------- -- --------------------------------------------------- Brian Elliott Finley http://baldguysoftware.com/ phone: 214.280.8188 http://systemimager.org/ --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Sisuite-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sisuite-devel
