Warren Young wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:00 PM, Warren Young <warren@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
> So, I logged into it remotely, poked around a bit, and got it to divulge
> the motherboard, CPU, etc. that we’d used on it, and I found that we had
> a nearly-identical box sitting around powered off locally, it having
> given us many years of useful service and then been retired. Same
> motherboard, same CPU, same RAM, probably even bought within the same
> year.
<snip>
> They put the drive in, booted it up, and it didn’t reappear on their
> network. No remote access, no presence on the LAN. It wouldn’t even
> ping.
>
> After a ridiculous amount of remote troubleshooting, it turned out that
> these two motherboards — despite having the same model number and EFI
> firmware version — had a sliiiight difference: the first NIC appeared as
> enp2s0 and the second as enp3s0 on one motherboard, but as enp3s0 and
> enp4s0 on the other! So, one network config wasn’t being applied, and
> the second was being applied to the wrong NIC.
>
> And here I thought the point of [CNDN][1] was to make such replacements
> more reliable than the plug-and-pray logic behind ethN.
Oh, yeah, right, and those "consistant names" mean *ANYTHING* to an
ordinary sysadmin, dealing with systems from different vendors of varying
age, who's not an EE. I *loathe* them. Give me eth0 or em1, not some
random string. It was fine when Sun used it... but that was on *their*
hardware, not hardware from three or four different vendors.
<snip>
mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
