All, last week I wrote:
> ilbadm create-servergroup ... [-n serverID=foo ] .. > > if the servernID option is not used, the ID defaults to the servergroup > name. and > upon reflection, I'd like to modify this such that serverID comes under > the -s option, just like server, eg. > > ilbadm create-servergroup -s server=10.1.1.1-10.1.1.10,serverID=myservers > group1 Darren's reply to specific issue: > According to your email, the serverID is just the string > given to the server group, shows a misconception of the way the server IDs were *intended*: namely, they were not just another name for a server group (and I'm not faulting Darren for that, I apparently didn't express this clearly enough). but this got me thinking: is there a need for the "base" of the server ID to be distinct from the server group (name)? In other words: would you be prepared to use different servergroups and rules to be able to use meaningful names for your back end servers? Michael -- Michael Schuster http://blogs.sun.com/recursion Recursion, n.: see 'Recursion'
