On 04/29/2014 02:42 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> This may be fine for users that don't know what they are doing or
> don't have a stable networking environment, but I have found for me it
> causes nothing but heartache.
Steve, first, if this comes off as a rant, that's not my intention, and
it's not directed to you personally.
My experience? There is no such thing as a 100% stable networking
environment. Systems like Tandem's NonStop take that a step further,
and realize that there's no such thing as a 100% stable CPU, either.
This whole discussion reminds me of the SELinux discussions, and the
oft-quoted advice to just disable it, it just gets in the way of The Way
I'm Used To Doing Things (TM).
> The first thing I do is disable it. The sad part is that it makes us
> not understand what is really happening with our systems and when
> something doesn't work we have no idea where to look.
NetworkManager is well-documented. You just have to read the docs and
be willing to try something new. It also logs to /var/log/messages in
plain text, too. There are more pieces, yes, to trace through. But,
unless you install the Desktop group or the anaconda package on your
server you won't get NetworkManager on it. If you install the Desktop
package, there's a bit of an assumption that you want a Desktop, no?
> I have been using UNIX/BSD/Linux since the mid eighties and hate where
> things appear to be going - looking more and more like Windows. my $.02
Looking like Windows is not a capital crime. (No, I am not a Windows
freak; I've used *nix of various types probably as long as you have, and
I haven't used any Windows as my primary desktop of choice since Windows
95 was a pup, and have never used a Windows Server as my primary server
of choice.)
NetworkManager's goal is extremely simple, and is in the README. It's
simply: "NetworkManager attempts to keep an active network connection
available at all times." Networks are unreliable. Period. That's why
we have BGP and OSPF and all the other interior and exterior gateway
protocols, because network links are 'best-effort' services; QoS depends
upon the expectation of unreliability, in fact, since the only way to
guarantee any packet a timeslot in a full pipe is to throw a different
packet out the door. See the absolutely delightful video 'Warriors of
the .Net' (www.warriorsofthe.net and elsewhere). We bond interfaces
because one could go down, right? (This is one area where NM is weak,
incidentally).
I cannot foresee every failure in any manual configuration. We have
dynamic routing protocols for a reason, since nobody can foresee how to
weight every possible static route.
Back in the late 1800's people who had used tillers to steer their
horseless carriages probably though the same thing about this new fancy
gizmo called a steering wheel. And automatic transmissions? Heresy!
Much of what I learned with Xenix on the Tandy 6000, Convergent Unix
System V Rel 2 on the AT&T 3B1, Apollo DomainOS (using the 4.3BSD
'personality' for the most part), SunOS and later Solaris on Sun3 and
SPARC hardware, and older Linux on PC and non-PC hardware still applies;
but things move on as requirements change. (At least I can still have
my vi! I HAVE used vi since the 80's, and it is still the same quirky
beast it always was, even in Xenix V7 on the T6K.).
But the GUI on the 3B1? And those 'pads' on DomainOS? Not portable,
and fallen by the wayside.
Older does not mean better, and many times newer things have to be tried
out first to see if they are, or aren't, better. Systemd is one of
these things, and it will be interesting to see how that all plays out
over the next few years.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
