On 02/24/09 08:55, Michael Schuster wrote: > 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)?
What is a server is being included in two seperate groups? Then at least in one case one of the servers in the server group will have a server with a base that is different than group name. Or are you planning to have a server have multiple server ids ? > 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
