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