-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [CentOS] RHEL 6.1 beta From: Steve Clark <sclark at netwolves.com><mailto:sclark at netwolves.com> To: CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org><mailto: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. >>> I'm doing platform validation on a SuperMicro X9SCL and on everything except for RHEL 6 the NIC I am connected to is seen as eth0, on RHEL only it is seen as eth1. These kinds of wacky inconsistencies drive people crazy =) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110505/8284b96f/attachment-0004.html>