Hi,
when I'm using corosync-quorumtool [-l] and have my ring0_addr set to a
IP address,
which does not resolve to a hostname, I get the nodes IP addresses for
the 'Name' column.
As I'm using the nodelist.node.X.name key to set the name of a node it
seems a bit confusing
to me that not this one gets preferred or at least also outputted. Its
quite a minor issue if
not nit picking but as I associate my nodes with there name I.
I'd be ready to assemble a patch and one possibility would be adapting
the output to something
like:
# corosync-quorumtool
Quorum information
------------------
Date: Tue Sep 20 11:12:14 2016
Quorum provider: corosync_votequorum
Nodes: 3
Node ID: 1
Ring ID: 1/1784
Quorate: Yes
Votequorum information
----------------------
Expected votes: 3
Highest expected: 3
Total votes: 3
Quorum: 2
Flags: Quorate
Membership information
----------------------
Nodeid Votes Name ring0_addr
1 1 uno 10.10.20.1 (local)
2 1 due 10.10.20.2
3 1 tre 10.10.20.3
And respective:
# corosync-quorumtool -l
Membership information
----------------------
Nodeid Votes Name ring0_addr
1 1 uno 10.10.20.1 (local)
2 1 due 10.10.20.2
3 1 tre 10.10.20.3
additional ring1_addr could be also outputted if set.
This would be just a general idea, if there are suggestions I'll gladly
hear them.
As such a change may be not ideal during a stable release, e.g as
corosync user could
parse the corosync-quorumtool output (I mean there are quite better
places to get the
info but there may be still user doing this) another possibility would
be adding an
option flag to corosync similar to '-i' (show node IP addresses instead
of the resolved
name) which then shows the nodelist.node.X.name value instead of IP or
resolved name.
Another, third, option would be letting the output as is but if the '-i'
option is not
set prefer the nodelist.node.X.name over the resolved hostname and fall
back to IP if
both are not available.
I'd almost prefer this change the most, it lets the output as it is and
it seems logical
that the Name column outputs the name key if possible, imo.
Would such a patch be welcomed or is this just something I find a little
strange?
Thanks,
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list: [email protected]
http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
