On 5/2/2011 9:58 AM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>>> But, yes, a different way of looking at NICs is coming down the pipe.
> It's about
>>>> time.
>>> EGADS Why? After working with FreeBSD for ten years it so nice not to
> have to worry
>>> is this rl0, vr0, em0, fxp0, bge0, ed0, etc in networking scripts. Why
> would you
>>> want to go back to that?
>>
>> The numbers chosen in the eth? scheme are more or less randomized even
> on identical hardware, so it is pretty much impossible to prepare a disk
> <snip>
> Anybody know *why*? Is it based on the order of response of the NIC
> firmware? Certainly, were I writing the code, I'd have based it on the bus
> address.
I think the 2.4 kernel did it that way, and was single-threaded during
detection. At least I seldom had problems omitting the HWADDR= setting
from ifcfg-eth? files and moving disks to a different chassis. My
impression was that 2.6 tries to do device detection in parallel to
speed up booting and thus makes the order unpredictable. As I recall,
there was a bug in early RHEL/Centos 5.x versions where the HWADDR=
setting was ignored if it was wrong, fixed in an update that made the
interface not come up at all. That made for fun times after the
update/reboot on remote machines...
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
