On 1/14/2014 18:23, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 1/14/2014 5:17 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>> I don't know about "less consistent", but I always considered it a
>> feature in Linux vs the BSDs or big iron Unix that I could always count
>> on the first network interface being "eth0". BSD and big iron Unix
>> named the interface after the Ethernet driver, as if that was what was
>> important.
>
> conversely, it wasn't always consistent WHICH NIC would be eth0. Had
> several x86 servers with dual integral nic's where eth0/eth1 were
> swapped relative to what RHEL/CentOS thought they were.
I know the problem you mean, but doesn't the HWADDR setting in the
ifcfg-ethX file fix the problem? Doesn't that force "ifup eth0" to bind
that file's settings to the right physical interface?
In the old days, ifcfg-ethX didn't have HWADDR, so "first" was somewhat
unpredictable, as you say.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
