[CentOS] RHEL 6.1 beta

Mon May 2 15:07:56 UTC 2011
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com>

On 5/2/2011 9:58 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
>>>> But, yes, a different way of looking at NICs is coming down the pipe.
> It's about
>>>> time.
>>> EGADS Why? After working with FreeBSD for ten years it so nice not to
> have to worry
>>> is this rl0, vr0, em0, fxp0, bge0, ed0, etc in networking scripts. Why
> would you
>>> want to go back to that?
>> The numbers chosen in the eth? scheme are more or less randomized even
> 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.

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...

   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com