[Pacemaker] getnameinfo() vs uname()

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

On 2012-08-31T12:43:20, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:

> [1] We will implement equivalent functions for the other cluster types.
> [2] The nodelist section looks something like:
> nodelist {
>     node {
>         nodeid: 1
>         ring0_addr: pcmk-1
>         quorum_votes: 1
>     }
>     node {
>         nodeid: 2
>         ring0_addr: pcmk-2
>         quorum_votes: 2
>     }
> }

A statically configured node list inside pacemaker?

I must be missing something here (if so, as usual, please forgive me
;-). But the nodes already have a unique identifier (the nodeid, which
they assign for themselves, and which is used internally).

Obviously, nobody wants to read nodeids in logs, especially not the
auto-generated ones.

But shouldn't the nodes announce their name (either locally configured,
or auto-picked from uname().nodename) too, and then other nodes should
update their mapping?

Isn't, like, that was is already happening? Why do we need an explicit
nodelist, or am I missing something?

If this is just about a mechanism for configuring the *local* name (and
in fact distribute it dynamically), I'd advise to not keep that in
corosync.conf, but in, say, /etc/corosync/local/uname by default. Then
one doesn't have to redistribute corosync.conf to all nodes just because
one node is added, and still can keep it identical across all nodes.


Regards,
    Lars

-- 
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde