Skip to main content

Cannot setup hostname and FQDN Centos 7

itemprop="text">

I'm now running CentOS-7.0-1406 and
looks like i can't setup hostname properly. As far as i know, you need to setup hostname
using hostnamectl set-hostname command and write FQDN in
/etc/hosts.
I have a centos machine and i want to set it's hostname to
"server" and FQDN to "server.mydomain.com". I run hostnamectl command and edit
/etc/hosts
file:




[root@server ~]#
hostnamectl set-hostname server
[root@server ~]# cat
/etc/hosts
127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.localdomain localhost4
localhost4.localdomain4
::1 localhost localhost.localdomain localhost6
localhost6.localdomain6

{inet_IP_here} server.mydomain.com server



At first everything
looks fine, console displays hostname when i run hostname
and it displays FQDN when i run hostname
-f
:




[root@server
~]# hostname
server
[root@server ~]# hostname
-f
server.mydomain.com


BUT
after i reboot machine and run the same commands again, it starts to display FQDN as
hostname:



[root@server ~]#
hostname
server.mydomain.com



I
must say that it's a VPS server and i have no such problem when i
do it on a local virtual machine. Also there is no any settings in VPS control panel
which look like hostname. What reason might cause such problems?



Answer




The Red Hat documentation explicitly instructs you to href="https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/Networking_Guide/ch-Configure_Host_Names.html"
rel="nofollow noreferrer">use the fully qualified domain name as the machine's static
hostname. Trying to name a server with a single unqualified name causes a
variety of problems with various services, most notably
email.




A host name
can be a free-form string up to 64 characters in length. However, Red Hat recommends
that both static and transient names match the fully-qualified domain
name
(FQDN) used for the machine in DNS, such as
host.example.com.





You
should be doing:



hostnamectl
set-hostname
server.example.com


You
can also manually edit /etc/hostname for the same effect;
again, it should contain the
FQDN.



# cat
/etc/hostname
server.example.com



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able