Oops..forgot to Cc the list ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andrew Mather <mathera@xxxxxxxxx> Date: May 13, 2005 4:18 PM Subject: Re: Strange behaviour of hostid ? To: Jonathan Berry <berryja@xxxxxxxxx> Hi Jonathan On 5/13/05, Jonathan Berry <berryja@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: <snip> > > The latest lot have the form: ffffffff809d3f8e, whereas previous ones > > were like: 809d288e <snip> > Does this happen on other x86_64 systems (running a 64-bit OS), or > just these new ones? If it does not, is the ID not negative (ie, is > the first number 7 or less)? This machine (halibut) is also an Opteron, but running FC2 (the ???'s are mine, not a problem with the machine's name) [root@halibut root]# uname -a Linux halibut.???.???.gov.au 2.6.5-1.358smp #1 SMP Sat May 8 09:28:14 EDT 2004 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux [root@halibut root]# hostid 809d288e [root@halibut root]# Whereas this one, sole...well..they're flat, so what else could I call them ? ;-) is an identical machine running FC3. We got two of these machines in January and another two this month. The older ones both return the expected value, while both new ones retun the 'odd' values. [root@sole ~]# uname -a Linux sole.???.???.gov.au 2.6.11-1.14_FC3smp #1 SMP Thu Apr 7 19:36:23 EDT 2005 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux [root@sole ~]# hostid ffffffff809d3f8e [root@sole ~]# The FC3 machine has all the latest updates, while the FC2 one is a month or two behind, although the version of hostid is the same for both. [root@halibut root]# hostid --version hostid (GNU coreutils) 5.2.1 [root@sole ~]# hostid --version hostid (GNU coreutils) 5.2.1 Andrew PS yes, the other two are called flounder and plaice ;-)
