[CentOS] RHEL 6.1 beta

Mon May 2 16:19:07 UTC 2011
Steve Clark <sclark at netwolves.com>

On 05/02/2011 11:07 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> 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...
Trying to save a few seconds when rebooting a server seems pointless to me. It is not as if this is something
that happens with a great deal of frequency.

My $.02

Stephen Clark
Sr. Software Engineer III
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.clark at netwolves.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110502/6b103214/attachment-0005.html>