On 24/02/09 08:20 AM, Michael Schuster wrote: > Darren, > > thx for your comments, some answers inline: > > On 02/23/09 18:30, Darren Reed wrote: >> On 23/02/09 02:39 PM, Michael Schuster wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> I'm now working on getting the recently discussed server IDs in >>> place; here's a question: >>> >>> What do we do with a server's ID when it is removed from a >>> servergroup? Do we want to "remember" its ID for re-use, in case the >>> same server (identified by IP address) ever comes back, and also to >>> make sure no other server gets assigned the same ID, and causes >>> confusion? >> >> So rather than worry about what to do when it is removed, >> concentrate on asking and answering the question about >> what is it intended to mean. And how you want the >> number space to behave. Also, do you mean the base >> name of the serverID or the individual numbers or >> the combination of the string and number? > > the latter, ie the individual server's unique ID (as you correctly > infer). > >> According to your email, the serverID is just the string >> given to the server group, but in that case it makes no >> sense to allow for "remembering" if an IP# goes away, >> so I'm concluding that you mean the individual serverID >> and not the base name. >> >> For example: >> - for what purpose is the serverID being published? > > to give the user a unique handle that easier to memorise and > manipulate than IP addresses (esp. IPv6). > >> - how do you intend for it to be used and for how long? > > for as long as the load balancer is up and the server in question is > in use.
Therefore the id can be reused. >> - how will a reboot impact serverIDs? > > it shouldn't at all if the configuration doesn't change. > >> - do you want the numbers to simply increase? > > yes. > >> - what is the range of numbers intended to be? > > We haven't fleshed that out, but I guess 10^5 is a sufficient range > (input welcome!) Given the answer to the previous question, why do you suppose 10^5 is big enough? >> - is the system admin allowed to control the id#? > > ATM there's no provision for that. That's not an answer to the question, which expects either "yes" or "no". >> - if the id is assigned automagically but I have to replace a box >> with id#X, why can't I reassign id#X? > > do you mean > a) use the same id#X for a different box that replaced the old one? > does it use the same IP? if so, just disable the back end server, > replace it, re-enable it. > b) assign a new id# to the same server or the id# of the replaced > server to one with a different IP address? yes. hmm... rather than invent a new term, serverID, why not just call it an "alias"? Darren
