[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: cfrun: question about the output for unreachable hosts

From: Mark Burgess
Subject: Re: cfrun: question about the output for unreachable hosts
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:34:19 +0100

No route to host = firewall?


On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 10:59 +0100, Moritz Bunkus wrote:
> Hey,
> I've got cfengine 2.1.10 running on a couple of Debian machines
> here. Not all are running 24/7 (the workstations). The usual thing.
> Everything is fine. I'm just a bit confused about cfrun's output if a
> host is unrechable. Example:
> 0 address@hidden:/home/mbunkus$ cfrun ls-bs-ws3
> cfrun(0):         .......... [ Hailing 
> ] ..........
> Couldn't open a socket
> socket: No route to host
> ls-bs-ws3 is indeed down, but why does cfrun use ls-bs-si2... as the
> host name in this case? This gets even more confusing when I run cfrun
> without any argument and it iterates through all hosts in
> cfrun.hosts. For each unreachable host it just prints the two lines
> shown above, and I have no clue whatsoever which hosts are actually
> down.
> So. Is this the intended behaviour? If yes, then why (probably because I
> don't fully understand how cfengine works; but that information above is
> useless and misleading)? If not, has this bug been fixed already? The
> ChangeLog for 2.1.13 does not mention anything in that direction, and I
> don't really want to install from source only for trying, and the
> packages in Debian/testing are at 2.1.10.
> Thanks for your help.
> Moritz
> _______________________________________________
> Help-cfengine mailing list
> address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]