On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 04/29/2014 03:05 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> There are two sides to this. On the one hand you want to be able to
>> nail down server configurations - and probably anything that is going
>> to stay wired.
>
> Ok, I'll bite on this one.
>
> *Why* do we want a server configuration to be nailed down? Is it due to
> a real need, or is it due to the inadequacies in the tools to allow
> fully dynamic and potentially transparently load-balanced dynamic
> configuration? Or is it due to the perceived need to control things
> manually instead of using effective automation? I do say 'effective'
> automation, yes, since ineffective or partially effective automation is
> worse than no automation. But one of the cornerstones of good sysadmin
> practice is to automate those things that should be automated.
You forgot to mention interoperable along with effective and complete.
When a network can run perfectly without a human controlling the
names and addresses precisely at some level or another regardless of
what you plug into it, I'll happily agree that automation would be an
improvment. Right now I can't even dream of that as a possibility.
And so each component needs to configured by a human - and stay that
way - or it isn't going to work with the rest of the world.
> Dynamic DNS and/or mDNS with associated addresses deals with the need
> for a static IP;
Is that secure?
> SRV records in the DNS can deal with the need for a
> static name, as long as you have a domain; and something like (but
> different from!) Universal PnP can deal with that.
Is that a standard that is universal?
> NetworkManager (and similar automation) has application in cloud-based
> things, where the server needs to be as dynamic as the device accessing
> the server.
You just pushed the management somewhere else - you didn't eliminate it.
> It also has application in embedded things, where you want
> to plug in an appliance to a network and have its services available
> regardless of the network environment (maybe no DHCP, maybe no DNS,
> maybe dynamic addresses, and maybe static; it really shouldn't matter).
Your argument makes sense for devices that don't provide a reasonable
interface for their own configuration. But how does that apply to a
server with a full Linux distribution?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
