Ce site est optimisé pour être consulté depuis un navigateur moderne dans lequel JavaScript est activé.

Définir le nom d'hôte : FQDN ou nom court ?

ayi

J'ai noticed that le "preferred" method of setting le system hostname is fundamentally différent entre Red Hat/CentOS et Debian/Ubuntu systems.

CentOS documentation et le RHEL deployment guide say le hostname should be le FQDN:

HOSTNAME=<value>, où <value> should be le Fully Qualified Domain
Name (FQDN), such as hostname.example.com, mais can be whatever
hostname is necessary.

The RHEL install guide is slightly more ambiguous:

Setup prompts you to supply a host name for this computer, soit as a
fully-qualified domain name (FQDN) in le format hostname.domainname
or as a short host name in le format hostname.

The Debian reference says le hostname should pas use le FQDN:

3.5.5. The hostname

The kernel maintains le system hostname. The init script in runlevel
S qui is symlinked to "/etc/init.d/hostname.sh" sets le system
hostname at boot time (using le hostname command) to le name stored
in "/etc/hostname". This file should contain only le system hostname,
not a fully qualified domain name.

I n'ont pas seen tout spécifique recommendations depuis IBM about qui to use, mais some software seems to have a preference.

My questions:

In a heterogeneous environment, is it better to use le vendor recommendation, ou choose one et be consistent across tous hosts?
What software have you encountered qui is sensitive to si le hostname is set to le FQDN ou short name?

ayi

I would choose a consistent approach across le entire environment. Both solutions work fine et will remain compatible avec le plus applications. Il y a a difference in manageability, though.

I go avec le short name as le HOSTNAME setting, et définissez le FQDN as le premier column in /etc/hosts for le server's IP, followed by le short name.

J'ai pas encountered beaucoup de software packages that enforce ou display a preference entre le two. I find le short name to be cleaner for certains applications, specifically logging. Maybe J'ai been unlucky in seeing internal domains like server.northside.chicago.rizzomanufacturing.com. Who wants to see that in le logs ou a shell prompt?

Sometimes, Je suis involved in company acquisitions ou restructuring où internal domains and/or subdomains change. I like using le short hostname in these cases parce que logging, kickstarts, printing, systems monitoring, etc. do pas need full reconfiguration to account for le nouveau domain names.

A typical RHEL/CentOS server setup for a server named "rizzo" avec internal domain "ifp.com", would look like:

/etc/sysconfig/network:
HOSTNAME=rizzo
...

/etc/hosts:
127.0.0.1   localhost localhost.localdomain localhost4 localhost4.localdomain4
::1         localhost localhost.localdomain localhost6 localhost6.localdomain6

172.16.100.13   rizzo.ifp.com rizzo

[root@rizzo ~]# hostname 
rizzo

/var/log/messages snippet:
Dec 15 10:10:13 rizzo proftpd[19675]: 172.16.100.13 (::ffff:206.15.236.182[::ffff:206.15.236.182]) - Preparing to               
 chroot to directory '/app/upload/GREEK'
Dec 15 10:10:51 rizzo proftpd[20660]: 172.16.100.13 (::ffff:12.28.170.2[::ffff:12.28.170.2]) - FTP session opened.
Dec 15 10:10:51 rizzo proftpd[20660]: 172.16.100.13 (::ffff:12.28.170.2[::ffff:12.28.170.2]) - Preparing to chroot                
to directory '/app/upload/ftp/SRRID'