Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
On Wednesday 07 April 2004 10:04, Lars Ellenberg wrote: > / 2004-04-07 09:04:32 +0200 > > \ Helmut Wollmersdorfer: > > What is the reason for this dependancy on hostname? Isn't it enough to > > specify IP:port for the two nodes? > > we'd need to have an additional indirection code path, figuring out > which section of hostdependent settings belongs to THIS host, depending > on the IP... > It is much easier to have the to host dependen sections indexed by > hostname, and ask the kernel which "index" belongs to me. > > > > what does the below .c proggie say? > > > > The same as the output of > > $ uname -n > > which is easier to call? > > Nope, unfortunately not necessarily in all cases, these are two > different syscalls :( > BTW, even the "hostname" binary uses the uname syscall > (according to strace)... > > I suggest to use the same as heartbeat, which is probably the uname > syscall. Philipp? Well, if heartbeat uses uname(2), then we should probabely use the same. Right. -Philipp -- : Dipl-Ing Philipp Reisner Tel +43-1-8178292-50 : : LINBIT Information Technologies GmbH Fax +43-1-8178292-82 : : Schönbrunnerstr 244, 1120 Vienna, Austria http://www.linbit.com :