On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > Rob Townley wrote: >> >> NIC ordering is a problem. Some say it is the multi cpu, some say bad >> BIOS, some say MAC address ordering is better, some say PCI bus >> enumeration is better. The netdev mailing list has had a long running >> discussion on this issue. The CTO of Dell and members of HP along >> with others are / were active participants. Part of the problem is >> that an alias name may not be available to the kernel. >> >> Dell has their own software to bring determinism to NIC ordering. >> http://linux.dell.com/papers.shtml >> >> One of Dell's programmers has proposed changing Anaconda to let you >> choose at installation time the NIC naming convention: >> >> We have been having discussions in the netdev list about creating >> multiple names for the network interfaces to bring determinism into >> the way network interfaces are named in the OSes. In specific, "eth0 >> in the OS does not always map to the integrated NIC Gb1 as labelled on >> the chassis". >> >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=125510301513312&w=2 - (Re: PATCH: >> Network Device Naming mechanism and policy) >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=125619338904322&w=2 - ([PATCH] >> udev: create empty regular files to represent net) >> > > Do any of these approaches help with the scenario where you want to clone a > system across many identical machines including future additions where you don't > know the MAC addresses yet, and you'd like the remote operator to be able to > insert a drive and have it come up with the right interfaces on the right > network connections? This was possible in Centos 3.x, but not in 5.x. > > -- > Les Mikesell > lesmikesell at gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > Yes Les.