Hello,
Anybody else run into problems with biosdevname .0.5..0-2 changing names from p2p1 to em1 when upgrading from biosdevname 0.4.1-3?
Darn! I thought biosdevname was to keep the names the same!!
Steve Clark wrote:
Anybody else run into problems with biosdevname .0.5..0-2 changing names from p2p1 to em1 when upgrading from biosdevname 0.4.1-3?
Is this in 6.5?
Darn! I thought biosdevname was to keep the names the same!!
Maybe enough folks were annoyed with the old Sun-ism, and found eth0 or em1 easier to remember, esp. when the network or NIC was down....
mark
On 03/20/2014 12:14 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Steve Clark wrote:
Anybody else run into problems with biosdevname .0.5..0-2 changing names from p2p1 to em1 when upgrading from biosdevname 0.4.1-3?
Is this in 6.5?
Yes.
Darn! I thought biosdevname was to keep the names the same!!
Maybe enough folks were annoyed with the old Sun-ism, and found eth0 or em1 easier to remember, esp. when the network or NIC was down....
mark
I filed a bug report we will see what happens.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:14 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Anybody else run into problems with biosdevname .0.5..0-2 changing names from p2p1 to em1 when upgrading from biosdevname 0.4.1-3?
Is this in 6.5?
Darn! I thought biosdevname was to keep the names the same!!
Maybe enough folks were annoyed with the old Sun-ism, and found eth0 or em1 easier to remember, esp. when the network or NIC was down....
eth0 is easy to remember, but in the old scheme the same nic might be eth0 on one box and eth7 on another so remembering it doesn't help you.
This sounds like a bug to me.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Steve Clark sclark@netwolves.com wrote:
Hello,
Anybody else run into problems with biosdevname .0.5..0-2 changing names from p2p1 to em1 when upgrading from biosdevname 0.4.1-3?
I'll second Les' statement that this sounds like a bug.
An interface should only be automatically named em1 if it's an onboard NIC in a (just Dell?) system.
And an interface should only be detected as pXpY if it's a PCI NIC. THOUGH I've seen it already where an onboard NIC in a Lenovo desktop was detected as p5p1.
Darn! I thought biosdevname was to keep the names the same!!
A while back I commented about differences I saw with installs of CentOS 6.3 (upgraded to the latest) and a fresh CentOS 6.4 (at the time). I had p1pY on the 6.3, but come time for the fresh install of 6.4 I had all ethX on identical hardware.
-- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.clark@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:33 AM, SilverTip257 silvertip257@gmail.com wrote:
An interface should only be automatically named em1 if it's an onboard NIC in a (just Dell?) system.
And an interface should only be detected as pXpY if it's a PCI NIC. THOUGH I've seen it already where an onboard NIC in a Lenovo desktop was detected as p5p1.
Just to keep things interesting, I get p3p1 for the onboard NIC in a dell D630 laptop (this is with the RHEL7 beta install).
On 3/20/2014 10:33, SilverTip257 wrote:
And an interface should only be detected as pXpY if it's a PCI NIC. THOUGH I've seen it already where an onboard NIC in a Lenovo desktop was detected as p5p1.
Just because the MAC chip is soldered to the motherboard doesn't mean it can't be on the PCI[e] bus.
As far as I know, this new NIC naming scheme doesn't actually make distinctions based on whether a card-edge connector is involved.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com wrote:
On 3/20/2014 10:33, SilverTip257 wrote:
And an interface should only be detected as pXpY if it's a PCI NIC. THOUGH I've seen it already where an onboard NIC in a Lenovo desktop was detected as p5p1.
Just because the MAC chip is soldered to the motherboard doesn't mean it can't be on the PCI[e] bus.
I'm in agreement on that. ( I just wanted to point out that there are some differences and quirks [that may not be a bug]. )
I believe biosdevname applies only to Dell hardware, but maybe more hardware support has been added for other manufacturers. That particular Lenovo hardware had an install of the latest Fedora release at the time...
As far as I know, this new NIC naming scheme doesn't actually make distinctions based on whether a card-edge connector is involved. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 03/21/2014 06:36 PM, SilverTip257 wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Warren Young warren@etr-usa.com wrote:
On 3/20/2014 10:33, SilverTip257 wrote:
And an interface should only be detected as pXpY if it's a PCI NIC. THOUGH I've seen it already where an onboard NIC in a Lenovo desktop was detected as p5p1.
Just because the MAC chip is soldered to the motherboard doesn't mean it can't be on the PCI[e] bus.
I'm in agreement on that. ( I just wanted to point out that there are some differences and quirks [that may not be a bug]. )
I believe biosdevname applies only to Dell hardware, but maybe more hardware support has been added for other manufacturers. That particular Lenovo hardware had an install of the latest Fedora release at the time...
My issue is the names changed when going from 0.4 version to 0.5.
On 03/20/2014 12:04 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
Hello,
Anybody else run into problems with biosdevname .0.5..0-2 changing names from p2p1 to em1 when upgrading from biosdevname 0.4.1-3?
Darn! I thought biosdevname was to keep the names the same!!
Update - I filed a bug report and got this response:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078974
Fabian Deutsch fdeutsch@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED CC| |fdeutsch@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2014-04-11 08:51:05
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Deutsch fdeutsch@redhat.com ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1058170 ***
Which is OK, but when I try to view the bug 1058170 I get
even after logging in. What up with that!!!
On 04/11/2014 11:21 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 03/20/2014 12:04 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
Hello,
Anybody else run into problems with biosdevname .0.5..0-2 changing names from p2p1 to em1 when upgrading from biosdevname 0.4.1-3?
Darn! I thought biosdevname was to keep the names the same!!
Update - I filed a bug report and got this response:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078974
Fabian Deutsch fdeutsch@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED CC| |fdeutsch@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2014-04-11 08:51:05--- Comment #2 from Fabian Deutsch fdeutsch@redhat.com ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1058170 ***
Which is OK, but when I try to view the bug 1058170 I get
I guess I can't send an image - but it said: *You are not authorized to access bug 1058170.* even if I am logged into bugzilla.
even after logging in. What up with that!!!
On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 11:28 -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:21 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 03/20/2014 12:04 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
Hello,
Anybody else run into problems with biosdevname .0.5..0-2 changing names from p2p1 to em1 when upgrading from biosdevname 0.4.1-3?
Darn! I thought biosdevname was to keep the names the same!!
Update - I filed a bug report and got this response:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078974
Fabian Deutsch fdeutsch@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED CC| |fdeutsch@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2014-04-11 08:51:05--- Comment #2 from Fabian Deutsch fdeutsch@redhat.com ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1058170 ***
Which is OK, but when I try to view the bug 1058170 I get
I guess I can't send an image - but it said: *You are not authorized to access bug 1058170.* even if I am logged into bugzilla.
even after logging in. What up with that!!!
I can view the report without issue via link:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058170
The only comment i.e. #1 says:
Fabian Deutsch 2014-01-27 02:13:59 EST
Cloned this to biosdevname because it the device names changed between 6.4 and 6.5.
Regards
Phil
On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 16:39 +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:
On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 11:28 -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:21 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 03/20/2014 12:04 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
Hello,
Anybody else run into problems with biosdevname .0.5..0-2 changing names from p2p1 to em1 when upgrading from biosdevname 0.4.1-3?
Darn! I thought biosdevname was to keep the names the same!!
Update - I filed a bug report and got this response:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078974
Fabian Deutsch fdeutsch@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED CC| |fdeutsch@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2014-04-11 08:51:05--- Comment #2 from Fabian Deutsch fdeutsch@redhat.com ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1058170 ***
Which is OK, but when I try to view the bug 1058170 I get
I guess I can't send an image - but it said: *You are not authorized to access bug 1058170.* even if I am logged into bugzilla.
even after logging in. What up with that!!!
I can view the report without issue via link:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058170
The only comment i.e. #1 says:
Fabian Deutsch 2014-01-27 02:13:59 EST
Cloned this to biosdevname because it the device names changed between 6.4 and 6.5.
Regards
Phil
On the other hand, I am not allowed to view the report the above was cloned from:
You are not authorized to access bug #1034164
Regards
Phil
On 04/11/2014 11:39 AM, Phil Wyett wrote:
On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 11:28 -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:21 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
On 03/20/2014 12:04 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
Hello,
Anybody else run into problems with biosdevname .0.5..0-2 changing names from p2p1 to em1 when upgrading from biosdevname 0.4.1-3?
Darn! I thought biosdevname was to keep the names the same!!
Update - I filed a bug report and got this response:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1078974
Fabian Deutsch fdeutsch@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED CC| |fdeutsch@redhat.com Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed| |2014-04-11 08:51:05--- Comment #2 from Fabian Deutsch fdeutsch@redhat.com ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1058170 ***
Which is OK, but when I try to view the bug 1058170 I get
I guess I can't send an image - but it said: *You are not authorized to access bug 1058170.* even if I am logged into bugzilla.
even after logging in. What up with that!!!
I can view the report without issue via link:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058170
The only comment i.e. #1 says:
Fabian Deutsch 2014-01-27 02:13:59 EST
Cloned this to biosdevname because it the device names changed between 6.4 and 6.5.
Regards
Phil
I had already sent an Email to Fabian - I guess he fixed the permissions.
Thanks
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-
Les Mikesell -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Phil Wyett -
SilverTip257 -
Steve Clark -
Warren Young