[jboss-dev-forums] [Clustering Development] New message: "Re: Partition and Node identities"
JBoss development,
A new message was posted in the thread "Partition and Node identities":
http://community.jboss.org/message/529398#529398
Author : David Lloyd
Profile : http://community.jboss.org/people/david.lloyd@jboss.com
Message:
--------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:bstansberry@jboss.com wrote:
I was out yesterday; sorry for slow reploy.
100% agree we need a unique name for nodes, and the -b value isn't a good default, at
least not if -b is 0.0.0.0. I'll dig up a link to an earlier thread about this
general topic that kind of died out. This touches on lots of areas, so I suspect this
discussion will end up moving to the jboss-development list.
I don't think it's the end of the world if people have to actually specify the
name if they want to run two instances on the same machine both bound to 0.0.0.0.
They'd have to set -Djboss.service.binding.set=xxxx and
-Djboss.messaging.ServerPeerID=y on at least one node anyway, so it's not like their
startup command was totally trivial and now they are forced to add complexity.
Yeah, I think that no matter what, if someone is running two instances on the same
machine, they'll have to distinguish the node name somehow. The case I was describing
to Jaikiran was the case where there are two machines with instances bound to 0.0.0.0 in
the same cluster - using the name of the bound interface would not work in this (common)
case.
mailto:bstansberry@jboss.com wrote:
I think when we move to a proper domain model we should require each server instance in
the configuration to have a name. For that reason also, I don't think driving people
in some cases to actually configure the name is the end of the world. Actually, that's
the one thing that concerns me in your proposal for determining the name, which otherwise
sounds fine: it introduces 3 system properties. If in a future domain configuration people
are just required to do something like:
<server name=AS1...
then for AS 6 we've probably introduced 2 configuration system properties that will
disappear in AS 7?
In my research, I've seen enough people struggle to get ahold
of the system's host name that it's my belief that that is something we should be
providing anyway, if we can get it. This way, all the various "tricks" for
getting the host name that crop up over time can be centrally located. Think of it as
added value (if only a little tiny bit). So I think keeping a pair of host name
properties is something that we would have no reason to get rid of.
In the future domain configuration scenario, it might still be useful for any per-host
configuration to have a default server name as well. I really think that many
administrators are just going to use their server host name for this anyway. The only
time you should be *required* to specify a server/node/host name is when you're not
talking about your own. Either way, again it might be a handy thing if users could always
count on getting the node's name from a property.
--------------------------------------------------------------
To reply to this message visit the message page:
http://community.jboss.org/message/529398#529398