On Mar 15, 2012, at 3:30 PM, Jon Aimone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We've already run into some of this in-house. Our labs have started deploying
> the DHCP server that comes with S11 as the "standard," but we have many more
> devices that use DHCP in our labs that are not S11 clients.
>
> Now we're having to find ways to not accidentally clobber what installadm
> does to the default config file when we make additions for other devices.
That *shouldn't* be an issue, because installadm will only modify configuration
entries for devices you want it to work with (i.e. explicit mac addrs passed
via create-client / delete-client). If there are other entanglements, please
let me know.
>
> We also have the fact that although we're using DHCP, we do not use address
> pools. All of our systems are statically assigned IP addresses, but
> installadm knows nothing of this. Fortunately the DHCP server does not seem
> to mind us making additional entries for the same client ID to statically
> assign the IP address.
Right, you can basically have redundant entries... but that's kind of bogus if
for no other reason than tracking/bookkeeping purposes. Plus, as those get more
complex, certain elements will cause an entire stanza to take priority over
other ones, and things can get very gross.
>
> I agree the simple case should be simple, but not at the expense of
> preventing the more sophisticated configurations.
Thanks for your view, much appreciated.
/jb
>
>
> Jesse Butler spoke thusly, on 03/15/12 12:18 PM:
>>
>> Right, but again I'm concerned with blowing up configs. I think if someone
>> has a configuration in place which is intricate and detailed and they aren't
>> even aware that we are modifying their configuration in the background is a
>> bit dangerous, and would likely be difficult to debug. I can imagine an
>> admin getting quite bent out of shape when they finally discover the reason
>> that none of their nodes have DHCP-assigned hostname is because we're trying
>> to help :)
>>
>> So, given the options of a set-and-forget property when actively requesting
>> assistance, versus not blowing up configurations when that behavior was
>> *not* requested, I'd opt for defaulting to the non-destuctive case, and
>> having users explicitly set a property.
>>
>> But, again... quorum will rule. I just might not be happy :)
>>
>> /jb
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~\o/~~~~~~~~
> Cheers,
> Jon.
> {-%]
> ========
> If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've
> always gotten.
> - Anon.
> --------
> The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the federal government but
> doesn't have to take the civil service examination.
> - Ronald Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004)
> --------
> When someone asks you, "Penny for your thoughts," and you put your two cents
> in, what happens to the other penny?
> - G. Carlin (May 12, 1937 - June 22, 2008)
> <jon_aimone.vcf>_______________________________________________
> caiman-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
_______________________________________________
caiman-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
