On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 17:29, Peter Much<pmc@citylink.dinoex.sub.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:52:32AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> ! On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:42, Peter Much<pmc@citylink.dinoex.sub.org> wrote:
>
> Now understanding it, I bow in respect - this is indeed a fine
> improvement!
Thanks :-)
> ! > But _there_is_no_such_thing_ as a "fully qualified hostname"!
>
> ! In a very large part of the cases, the fully qualified hostname will
> ! be the same as the fully qualified interface name for the only
> ! interface that's configured.
>
> Alright, frankly and just out of band of the topic, let me say
> one thing: I am installing systems for the big commercial vendors
> for more than a decade now, and this matter was an ongoing annoyance
> all of the time.
> While at first glance it may be considered just a matter of
> convenience, the real trouble starts as soon as one does
> high-availability solutions; these will definitely break on such
> an assumption, and we end up with patching the hostname on takeover:
> so having no functional mailer, unintellegible logfiles, not knowing
> for sure on which hardware we admins are logged in, and similar
> ugliness more.
> Here I am talking about the commercial middleware vendors, who
> are really stubborn in this matter - in the OpenSource the situation
> is already a thousand times better!
If you have any suggestions for improvements on either the
documentation on the feature itself from someone who's deploying them
"for real customers", that's always interesting.
--
Magnus Hagander
Self: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
