> On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:00 PM, Warren Young <warren at etr-usa.com> wrote: >> >> remotely talking someone through changing ifcfg-noisenoise via nano is a >> minor nightmare, especially now that Confusing Network Device Naming is >> the default. > > A relevant war story might help here. > > We were upgrading an old CentOS 5 box in the field. They refused to ship > it back to us, and they refused to buy a whole new box, but they had to > have the newest software. > > This being CentOS, “yum upgrade” wasn’t going to get us to CentOS 7. What > to do? > > So, I logged into it remotely, poked around a bit, and got it to divulge > the motherboard, CPU, etc. that we’d used on it, and I found that we had a > nearly-identical box sitting around powered off locally, it having given > us many years of useful service and then been retired. Same motherboard, > same CPU, same RAM, probably even bought within the same year. > > So, I dropped a fresh system drive into that box, loaded CentOS 7 and all > of our stuff onto it, configured the network and everything else under > /etc the same as the box in the field, and shipped the drive out to the > customer. > > They put the drive in, booted it up, and it didn’t reappear on their > network. No remote access, no presence on the LAN. It wouldn’t even > ping. > > After a ridiculous amount of remote troubleshooting, it turned out that > these two motherboards — despite having the same model number and EFI > firmware version — had a sliiiight difference: the first NIC appeared as > enp2s0 and the second as enp3s0 on one motherboard, but as enp3s0 and > enp4s0 on the other! So, one network config wasn’t being applied, and the > second was being applied to the wrong NIC. > > And here I thought the point of [CNDN][1] was to make such replacements > more reliable than the plug-and-pray logic behind ethN. One of the reasons why I hate the new naming scheme. It was also easy in the past to always monitor eth0, eth1 on a server, now you always have to first find out how the devices are named. I don't see progress here, I see a step back only. Maybe that's only me :-) Regards, Simon