On 02/24/09 11:06, Darren Reed wrote: > 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.
I don't see how that follows ... can you elaborate? > > >>> - 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? I should have added "they will wrap around, eventually". I agree this all still seems a little fuzzy ... that's why I started this thread. I think re-use will play a role somewhere, this thread was started in the effort to find out where. >>> - 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". oh come on :-) "no provision for that" is close enough to "no", isn't it? >>> - 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"? we could use that as well, if there's an agreement to. -- Michael Schuster http://blogs.sun.com/recursion Recursion, n.: see 'Recursion'
