Using the previous server name for packge name

[Hanry Zhou]

We plan to convert the production server "xyz" to be 2-nodes cluster. Users will then have to change all references to the previous server "xyz", and these references will have to point to the package name instead. However, users are very much hesitated to change these references, and they want to continue use the name "xyz", and associated IP. The solution to achive that is to give away "xyz" and ip to the package name, and give the previous nodes a different new name and ip.

I don't like the idea, and already posted the following thread on this forum.
http://forums1.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?threadId=951413

I agree with all of you, and also passed all your messages in that thread on. However, users are still not so convinced, because all these opinions seem not in details, most of them are just "guts feeling". They want to know concrete problems if we ever use this solution, otherwise, they believe that there will be no problem by using "xyz" as the package name, because the package name could be any name, and as long as we changed DNS entry, then "xyz" will become the package name.

In addition to these messages posted in that thread. What would you tell them? to convince them not to use "xyz".

Appreciate your suggestions.

Thanks,

[A. Clay Stephenson]

This is a case of whatever works for you and your users. There is really no right or wrong answer here. Perhaps the best of both worlds would be to give your package hostname whatever you like ands make the most sense to you and create the DNS entry for it, e.g. "mypackage" then create a cananonical DNS (CNAME) entry that links my package to "xyz". This way both you and your users can have their cake and eat it too. With any luck, gradually over time you can then shift them away from the "bad" xyz to the "good" mypackage.

[Hanry Zhou]

Clay,

I have also thought about what you suggested here. However, there are a few issues with this approach.

1. The question is really turn out to whether or not you have same concerns as others have in the previous thread. If you are, using the "server name" as the alias of the package name or using the server name as the package name would have the same result. After you create the alias name, users will definitely go for that alias name because that is what they fight for.

2. By using the server name as the alias of the package name would be worsen than directly using server name as the package name, because it is not good idea to have all references and applications to use the alias of the package name, because some application may only like primary name.

[A. Clay Stephenson · Accepted solution]

As I said there is no right or wrong answer here and really no technical basis on which to stand because all that matters is the IP address --- and yes, I did read the other thread and like your users I found no compelling reason to change. The best you can hope to do is start a convention in that you always refer to the package by your preferred hostname and let the stubborn users refer to it as they like. Bear in mind that regardless of what you call it they can make their own hostname entries on their boxes and call it whatever they like if the IP address is correct. This is why I suggested the "real" and canonical hostname approach. You always use the "real" hostname and act really dumb when they refer to the other "bad" hostname.
Eventually, you will win.

Actually using hostnames and aliases is always a good approach even in a non-MCSG environment. For example, suppose the you had two servers (hr and erp) and those two application servers were later merged into one called "bigmomma". Using the alias approach both "hr" and "erp" hostnames could actually refer to "bigmomma" and no client changes would be required.

Always plan ahead. You seem to be making a big deal out of nothing. Personally, I would not like the job of explaining to tons of PC users how to make the change to point to another server -- or writing the procedures to do it. I'm just lazy. I would make my two DNS entries and declare victory.

[A. Clay Stephenson]

By the way, I don't buy your argument that there are applications that only respond to the "real" hostname. If that is true then the application could not possibly be a service guard package because the package hostname is certainly not the static hostname.

[Hanry Zhou]

I would like to hear more opinions...

[Hanry Zhou]

Anybody else?

[Hanry Zhou]

Would like to hear more of inputs. Thanks!

[Mark Nieuwboer]

Hanry,

Why would you like too hear more options.
As described above that's how you can do it.
The best way i agrre is to make a dns alias entry so you don't have to worry.

grtz. mark