On 07/04/15 15:00, Jan Friesse wrote:
> Chrissie,
>
> Christine Caulfield napsal(a):
>> On 20/03/15 10:26, Jan Friesse wrote:
>>> Chrissie,
>>> nice idea but I have two comments.
>>> 1. Nodes without nodeid (so auto generated nodeid) are not checked. It
>>> can happen that user enters nodeid which collides with auto generated
>>> nodeid. In practice not very important, but still make sense to make it
>>> right.
>>
>> I've had a look at this and I'm not sure it's feasible. There's no
>> reasonable way I can think of defining a node that's in the nodelist
>> that shouldn't be there because it clashes with the active list.
>>
>
> I was actually thinking about following scenario:
>
> nodelist {
> node {
> ring0_addr: 192.168.1.1
> }
> node {
> ring0_addr: 192.168.1.2
> nodeid: decimal form of 192.168.1.1
> }
> }
>
> So there are two nodes with same nodeid.
>
> Does this fall into one of three scenarios you've wrote?
>
> Because scenario I've described is not properly detected in corosync
> (and it's one of big todo) and corosync will crash. I believe your patch
> will be more complete if it would be able to detect this case.
>
Ahh I see what you mean. that odd sort of config hadn't even occurred to
me! That should be do-able, I'll look into it :-)
Chrissie
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.corosync.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
