[jboss-dev-forums] [Clustering Development] New message: "Re: Partition and Node identities"

[David Lloyd]

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 at 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 at 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