<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 05/02/2011 11:07 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4DBEC8CC.1000202@gmail.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 5/2/2011 9:58 AM, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:m.roth@5-cent.us">m.roth@5-cent.us</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">But, yes, a different way of looking at NICs is coming down the pipe.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">It's about
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">time.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">EGADS Why? After working with FreeBSD for ten years it so nice not to
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">have to worry
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">is this rl0, vr0, em0, fxp0, bge0, ed0, etc in networking scripts. Why
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">would you
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">want to go back to that?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The numbers chosen in the eth? scheme are more or less randomized even
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">on 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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
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...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<font face="sans-serif">Trying to save a few seconds when rebooting
a server seems pointless to me. It is not as if this is something<br>
that happens with a great deal of frequency. <br>
<br>
My $.02<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Stephen Clark<br>
<b>NetWolves</b><br>
Sr. Software Engineer III<br>
Phone: 813-579-3200<br>
Fax: 813-882-0209<br>
Email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:steve.clark@netwolves.com">steve.clark@netwolves.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.netwolves.com">http://www.netwolves.com</a><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>