-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [CentOS] RHEL 6.1 beta From: Steve Clark <sclark at netwolves.com> To: CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> Date: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 10:40:51 AM > On 05/02/2011 10:47 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: >> On 5/2/2011 8:57 AM, Steve Clark wrote: >>> On 05/02/2011 09:38 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: >>>> On Monday, May 02, 2011 06:48:37 AM Christopher Chan wrote: >>>>> biosdevname for nics...bye bye eth0! >>>> Not by default, and according to the release notes only for certain Dell servers ATM. >>>> >>>> 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 >> to ship to a remote site and have it come up working unattended or clone >> disk images for a large rollout. If this gives predictable names in >> bios-detection order it will be very useful. Remote-site support is >> expensive and typically not great at the quirks of Linux distributions >> that you need to know to do IP assignments. >> > In my experience with Linux over the last 3 years using Centos and RH > I have never seen the ethn device > numbering change, and it always corresponds to the hardware vendor > marking on the units we use. > > We create images and ghost them onto various hardware platforms. I > just make sure I remove the > net persistent rules and the ifcfg-ethn stuff and they are then > redetected in the correct order. > Ditto, working with Dell hardware mostly, 2 or 4 NICs, never had an issue with them flipping or rearranging or out of order with the labels on CentOS5. We did have some problems with Fedora detecting in the wrong order, though we did not experience a flip. Images made with Clonezilla work fine, though the NICs come back up as DHCP - unsure if this was clonezilla or kudzu. Either way it was easy enough to configure an IP manually. I can see ethX/Y, eth0/1, 0/2, etc where X is the bus and Y is the port being acceptable, although most people probably won't experience a benefit. The BSD method of fxp0, rl0, etc is a pain in the rear. How exactly is the naming convention supposed to occur? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110504/92c2e91b/attachment-0005.html>