[Pacemaker] Low cost stonith device

[Johan Verrept]

Hi Lars,

> Yes.
> hostname (-s, -f) and uname differ in that
> uname -n just does one syscall (uname),
> and hostname (typically) does a gethostname(),
> then a gethostbyname(), the result of the latter
> heavily influenced by whatever is in your nsswitch,
> resolv and other .conf, as well as what may be listed
> in /etc/hosts, and the order of those entries ;)

I noticed. So comparing uname and hostname -s isn't a good idea. I
feared that.

> Instead of doing clever guesswork,
> surely those:
> 
> > 	http://www.aviosys.com/ip_power_9258hp.html
> > > > PS: there are others too in this category of devices:
> > > > http://www.server-rack-online.com/cw-2h2-c20.html
> 
> can be configured to use "arbitrary" names?

As I stated before, the label is limited to 15 characters. Those fill up
fast. That is why I am doing the whole guessing in the first place.
Using the short hostname seemed a better idea than just cutting off the
first 15 characters of the full hostname. It is much easier to
reconstruct the full name.

> so if your uname -n does contain dots (FQDN),
> you use that as label in the power switch,
> and if not, there you are.
> 
> You just have to get it right then,
> and the RA does not need to guess.

I could just check the "uname -n" for dots in the RA. Still a guess, but
a better one.

Offcourse, I could just move away from the whole port detection and just
require a parameter that maps the ports to the hostnames. I am not a big
fan of that though.

	J.