Re: CentOS 7, systemd, NetworkMangler, oh, my

["peter.winterflood" <peter.winterflood@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 13/02/17 16:49, James Hogarth wrote:
> On 13 February 2017 at 16:17, peter.winterflood
> <peter.winterflood@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > there's a really good solution to this.
> >
> > yum remove NetworkManager*
> >
> > chkconfig network on
> >
> > service network start
> >
> > and yes thats all under fedora 25, and centos 7.
> >
> > works like a charm.
> >
> > sometimes removing NM leaves resolv.conf pointing to the networkmanager
> > directory, and its best to check this, and replace your resolv.conf link
> > with a file with the correct settings.
> >
> > sorry if this upsets the people who maintain network mangler, but its
> > inappropriate on a server.
> This is terribly bad advice I'm afraid ...
>
> https://access.redhat.com/solutions/783533
>
> The legacy network service is a fragile compilation of shell scripts
> (which is why certain changes like some bonding or tagging alterations
> require a full system restart or very careful unpicking manually with
> ip) and is effectively deprecated in RHEL at this time due to major
> bug fixes only but no feature work.
>
> You really should have a read through this as well:
>
> https://www.hogarthuk.com/?q=node/8
>
> On EL6 yes NM should be removed on anything but a wifi system but on
> EL7 unless you fall into a specific edge case as per the network docs:
>
> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html-single/Networking_Guide/index.html
>
> you really should be using NM for a variety of reasons.
>
> Incidentally Mark, this had nothing to do with systemd ... I wish you
> would pick your topics a little more appropriately rather than
> tempting the usual flames.
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

James

This was not A flame at all, but another voice of frustration at the 
ongoing

adoption of workstation like features of the Redhat OS.

heres one of the reasons not to use NM in a server

we use bonding on all our systems

from that article you posted

Certain interface bonding configuration options as defined by the 
BONDING_OPTS parameter in the interface's ifcfg file may not be 
compatible with NetworkManager. ( Solution 1249593 
<https://access.redhat.com/solutions/1249593> )

in fact anyone who has tried to use bonding with NM will know why I 
dislike it.

thanks for that, article, this next bug had caught me, on an older build 
, now its fixed, but the fix did not go and backfix a broken config.

When transitioning from NetworkManager to using the network initscript, 
the default gateway parameter in the interface's ifcfg file will be 
depicted as 'GATEWAY0'. In order for the ifcfg file to be compatible 
with the network initscript, this parameter must be renamed to 
'GATEWAY'. This limitation will be addressed in an upcoming release of 
RHEL7.

one to watch out for on the removing NM, plus the resolv.conf one.

Anyway, for anyone else, make you own mind up whether this is good or 
bad advise, test it, and see how your mileage varies, Ive had more 
problems with NM than ive had with initscripts.



regards peter


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos