On 05/02/2011 11:07 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Trying to save a few seconds when rebooting a server seems pointless to me. It is not as if this is somethingOn 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 abouttime.EGADS Why? After working with FreeBSD for ten years it so nice not tohave to worryis this rl0, vr0, em0, fxp0, bge0, ed0, etc in networking scripts. Whywould youwant to go back to that?The numbers chosen in the eth? scheme are more or less randomized evenon 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... that happens with a great deal of frequency. My $.02 --
Stephen Clark NetWolves Sr. Software Engineer III Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.netwolves.com |
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
