LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   General (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)
-   -   Fedora 15 - Changing Eth Device Naming Scheme! (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/fedora-15-changing-eth-device-naming-scheme-858781/)

zer0signal 01-26-2011 09:20 AM

Fedora 15 - Changing Eth Device Naming Scheme!
 
http://digitizor.com/2011/01/25/fedo...device-naming/

trickykid 01-26-2011 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zer0signal (Post 4238297)

So Matt Domsch said:
Quote:

The ethX naming scheme works fine as long as the system has only one Ethernet port. However if there are more than one Ethernet ports, a sort of race condition develops at every system boot and the ports may get their names in an arbitrary order.
This is why you put the damn HWADDR in each ifcfg-ethX config you terds, so they don't get swapped around after a reboot, etc.

Stupid if you ask me, the developers in Fedora-lala-land must be bored and out of ideas, so let's just change something that really wasn't an issue to begin with.

zer0signal 01-26-2011 01:39 PM

Agreed, what was wrong with either binding by MAC address... or setting a Udev rule? Obviously binding by MAC is the easiest and quickest way to accomplish that... And I believe most distro's do that by default during installs.. Supposedly Ubuntu is jumping on the bandwagon too.. Don't touch what is not broken!

sheesh!

Jeebizz 01-26-2011 02:15 PM

Their nature is to break something or find something to break
 
Isn't this essentially the nature of these 'bleeding-edge' distros though? Unless they are not including experimental software/drivers in their distros they are messing things that shouldn't need to be messed with, to make it appear that something new has been added?

zer0signal 01-26-2011 02:21 PM

Seems to be that way... Gotta be a reason for FC-15...? Updated software just doesn't cut it I guess, the real thing is eventually this may get pushed into Enterprise Operations...

Jeebizz 01-26-2011 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zer0signal (Post 4238608)
the real thing is eventually this may get pushed into Enterprise Operations...

In that cast I feel very sorry for those who are Administering Fedora/RHEL servers. Reinventing the wheel is not whats needed.

John VV 01-26-2011 04:29 PM

Quote:

In that cast I feel very sorry for those who are Administering Fedora/RHEL servers. Reinventing the wheel is not whats needed.
i would never install fedora on a server ( one maybe exception - a for fun home server )

but it will be many many years before this shows up in RHEL , if it ever dose .

zer0signal 01-26-2011 04:35 PM

Quote:

i would never install fedora on a server ( one maybe exception - a for fun home server )

but it will be many many years before this shows up in RHEL , if it ever dose .
Yeah, I agree on both. Earliest IMO would be RHEL 7, by then who knows what has changed.

anomie 01-26-2011 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zer0signal
Fedora 15 - Changing Eth Device Naming Scheme

This doesn't appear to be going over well - here or on the announcement page you pointed to. ;)

If I could offer a differing opinion: I mostly like the naming scheme idea. It would be useful to me to quickly know from a remote location which physical device a logical name refers to. I manage several servers with three four-port Intel PCIe NICs, and one four-port Broadcom onboard NIC. It's annoying to have to document logical -> physical mappings for eth0 through eth15, just so I can explain to a data center technician which port he can operate on without bringing our apps to a screeching halt.

Anyway, WRT the new Fedora naming scheme proposal, I have a different nit to pick. I don't like that they're using 1-based port numbering. Every *nix I know of uses 0-based.

John VV 01-26-2011 06:15 PM

pulse audio also did not go over well back in fedora 8

so who knows , time will tell.

wafflesausage 01-26-2011 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anomie (Post 4238828)
This doesn't appear to be going over well - here or on the announcement page you pointed to. ;)

If I could offer a differing opinion: I mostly like the naming scheme idea. It would be useful to me to quickly know from a remote location which physical device a logical name refers to. I manage several servers with three four-port Intel PCIe NICs, and one four-port Broadcom onboard NIC. It's annoying to have to document logical -> physical mappings for eth0 through eth15, just so I can explain to a data center technician which port he can operate on without bringing our apps to a screeching halt.

Anyway, WRT the new Fedora naming scheme proposal, I have a different nit to pick. I don't like that they're using 1-based port numbering. Every *nix I know of uses 0-based.

I know, this is just confusing and inconsistent with how all other devices are named. Devices in Unix-like systems have always started at zero and counted up. It doesn't make it more intuitive because new users will question the inconsistency or expect all devices to count up from one, and experienced users are already familiar with counting up from zero.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:49 AM.