On Nov 28, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Digging around google a bit more I came up with different rules,
>>>> and
>>>> fingers crossed, they seem to work!
>>>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:1b:21:4d:c3:e8", NAME="eth0"
>>>> # pro/1000gt
>>>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:e0:81:b5:7a:30", NAME="eth1"
>>>> # internal 1
>>>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:e0:81:b5:7a:31", NAME="eth2"
>>>> # internal 2
>
>> Don't touch udev, expecting admins to write udev rules for network
>> interface binding is just not realistic. Udev rules are meant to be
>> static across hardware reconfigurations while ifcfg files are meant
>> to
>> be modified to suit your current configuration.
>
>> Use HWADDR="00:1b:21:4d:c3:e8" in the ifcfg files along with
>> NAME=eth0
>> for eth0 and so on.
>
> I read a while ago that udev overrode ifcfg-* settings so I did a
> clean install of 5.4 and changed:
> ifcfg-eth0 to ifcfg-eth9 (file name)
> eth0 to eth9 (inside the file)
> the last number of the HWADDR line
>
> The nic came up as eth0 with the old/original mac address after a
> reboot.
>
> So we unfortunately have to write udev rules when we have nic naming
> problems...
Did you also change the alias names in modprobe.conf?
-Ross
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
11-28-2009, 07:55 PM
Ross Walker
again, nic driver order
On Nov 28, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tom H wrote:
>>>>> Digging around google a bit more I came up with different rules,
>>>>> and
>>>>> fingers crossed, they seem to work!
>>>>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:1b:21:4d:c3:e8", NAME="eth0"
>>>>> # pro/1000gt
>>>>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:e0:81:b5:7a:30", NAME="eth1"
>>>>> # internal 1
>>>>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:e0:81:b5:7a:31", NAME="eth2"
>>>>> # internal 2
>>
>>> Don't touch udev, expecting admins to write udev rules for network
>>> interface binding is just not realistic. Udev rules are meant to be
>>> static across hardware reconfigurations while ifcfg files are
>>> meant to
>>> be modified to suit your current configuration.
>>
>>> Use HWADDR="00:1b:21:4d:c3:e8" in the ifcfg files along with
>>> NAME=eth0
>>> for eth0 and so on.
>>
>> I read a while ago that udev overrode ifcfg-* settings so I did a
>> clean install of 5.4 and changed:
>> ifcfg-eth0 to ifcfg-eth9 (file name)
>> eth0 to eth9 (inside the file)
>> the last number of the HWADDR line
>
> Do you mean that you changed the HWADDR line so it no longer matched
> the actual
> nic mac address? In that case, you shouldn't expect it to work.
>
>> The nic came up as eth0 with the old/original mac address after a
>> reboot.
>>
>> So we unfortunately have to write udev rules when we have nic
>> naming problems...
>
> I think the ifcfg-eth? files work when they match the nic mac
> addresses. They
> may have to all match for any of them to work, though. I've seen
> some cases
> where they all get renamed with a .bak extension and new ones are
> created but I
> don't know what triggers that.
Usually a new kernel that forces a regeneration of the hwconf.
There was a kernel update maybe the move from C4 to C5 which caused
grief with Dell hardware, where it reversed the order Broadcom devices
are detected, still does and needs manual swapping around after install.
-Ross
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
11-28-2009, 11:39 PM
Gordon McLellan
again, nic driver order
The formula that ended up working for me:
undo modifications to udev rules
comment out the alias ethX lines that anaconda had placed in my modprobe.conf
use HWADDR= in the ifcfg-ethX config files.
slave interfaces have onboot=yes in them, despite no IP address information
The nics are correctly initialized every boot now, and everything
works as expected with the bonding driver. I even have vlans created
on the bonded interface.
Gordon
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
11-29-2009, 07:27 AM
Rob Townley
again, nic driver order
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Ross Walker <rswwalker@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tom H wrote:
>>>>>> Digging around google a bit more I came up with different rules,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> fingers crossed, they seem to work!
>>>>>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:1b:21:4d:c3:e8", NAME="eth0"
>>>>>> # pro/1000gt
>>>>>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:e0:81:b5:7a:30", NAME="eth1"
>>>>>> # internal 1
>>>>>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:e0:81:b5:7a:31", NAME="eth2"
>>>>>> # internal 2
>>>
>>>> Don't touch udev, expecting admins to write udev rules for network
>>>> interface binding is just not realistic. Udev rules are meant to be
>>>> static across hardware reconfigurations while ifcfg files are
>>>> meant to
>>>> be modified to suit your current configuration.
>>>
>>>> Use HWADDR="00:1b:21:4d:c3:e8" in the ifcfg files along with
>>>> NAME=eth0
>>>> for eth0 and so on.
>>>
>>> I read a while ago that udev overrode ifcfg-* settings so I did a
>>> clean install of 5.4 and changed:
>>> ifcfg-eth0 to ifcfg-eth9 (file name)
>>> eth0 to eth9 (inside the file)
>>> the last number of the HWADDR line
>>
>> Do you mean that you changed the HWADDR line so it no longer matched
>> the actual
>> nic mac address? *In that case, you shouldn't expect it to work.
>>
>>> The nic came up as eth0 with the old/original mac address after a
>>> reboot.
>>>
>>> So we unfortunately have to write udev rules when we have nic
>>> naming problems...
>>
>> I think the ifcfg-eth? files work when they match the nic mac
>> addresses. *They
>> may have to all match for any of them to work, though. *I've seen
>> some cases
>> where they all get renamed with a .bak extension and new ones are
>> created but I
>> don't know what triggers that.
>
> Usually a new kernel that forces a regeneration of the hwconf.
>
> There was a kernel update maybe the move from C4 to C5 which caused
> grief with Dell hardware, where it reversed the order Broadcom devices
> are detected, still does and needs manual swapping around after install.
>
> -Ross
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
NIC ordering is a problem. Some say it is the multi cpu, some say bad
BIOS, some say MAC address ordering is better, some say PCI bus
enumeration is better. The netdev mailing list has had a long running
discussion on this issue. The CTO of Dell and members of HP along
with others are / were active participants. Part of the problem is
that an alias name may not be available to the kernel.
Dell has their own software to bring determinism to NIC ordering.
http://linux.dell.com/papers.shtml
One of Dell's programmers has proposed changing Anaconda to let you
choose at installation time the NIC naming convention:
We have been having discussions in the netdev list about creating
multiple names for the network interfaces to bring determinism into
the way network interfaces are named in the OSes. In specific, "eth0
in the OS does not always map to the integrated NIC Gb1 as labelled on
the chassis".
http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=125510301513312&w=2 - (Re: PATCH:
Network Device Naming mechanism and policy)
http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=125619338904322&w=2 - ([PATCH]
udev: create empty regular files to represent net)
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
11-29-2009, 03:03 PM
Ross Walker
again, nic driver order
On Nov 29, 2009, at 3:27 AM, Rob Townley <rob.townley@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Ross Walker <rswwalker@gmail.com> wrote:
There was a kernel update maybe the move from C4 to C5 which caused
grief with Dell hardware, where it reversed the order Broadcom devices
are detected, still does and needs manual swapping around after install.
NIC ordering is a problem. Some say it is the multi cpu, some say bad
BIOS, some say MAC address ordering is better, some say PCI bus
enumeration is better. *The netdev mailing list has had a long running
discussion on this issue. *The CTO of Dell and members of HP along
with others are / were active participants. *Part of the problem is
that an alias name may not be available to the kernel.
Dell has their own software to bring determinism to NIC ordering.
http://linux.dell.com/papers.shtml
One of Dell's programmers has proposed changing Anaconda to let you
choose at installation time the NIC naming convention:
We have been having discussions in the netdev list about creating
multiple names for the network interfaces to bring determinism into
the way network interfaces are named in the OSes. In specific, "eth0
in the OS does not always map to the integrated NIC Gb1 as labelled on
the chassis".
It's good to hear it's being worked on, but I kinda wish they would revert to the older NIC enumeration method which seemed to get the ordering right.
-Ross
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
11-29-2009, 03:57 PM
Les Mikesell
again, nic driver order
Rob Townley wrote:
>
> NIC ordering is a problem. Some say it is the multi cpu, some say bad
> BIOS, some say MAC address ordering is better, some say PCI bus
> enumeration is better. The netdev mailing list has had a long running
> discussion on this issue. The CTO of Dell and members of HP along
> with others are / were active participants. Part of the problem is
> that an alias name may not be available to the kernel.
>
> Dell has their own software to bring determinism to NIC ordering.
> http://linux.dell.com/papers.shtml
>
> One of Dell's programmers has proposed changing Anaconda to let you
> choose at installation time the NIC naming convention:
>
> We have been having discussions in the netdev list about creating
> multiple names for the network interfaces to bring determinism into
> the way network interfaces are named in the OSes. In specific, "eth0
> in the OS does not always map to the integrated NIC Gb1 as labelled on
> the chassis".
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=125510301513312&w=2 - (Re: PATCH:
> Network Device Naming mechanism and policy)
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=125619338904322&w=2 - ([PATCH]
> udev: create empty regular files to represent net)
>
Do any of these approaches help with the scenario where you want to clone a
system across many identical machines including future additions where you don't
know the MAC addresses yet, and you'd like the remote operator to be able to
insert a drive and have it come up with the right interfaces on the right
network connections? This was possible in Centos 3.x, but not in 5.x.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
11-29-2009, 04:21 PM
Rob Townley
again, nic driver order
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rob Townley wrote:
>>
>> NIC ordering is a problem. Some say it is the multi cpu, some say bad
>> BIOS, some say MAC address ordering is better, some say PCI bus
>> enumeration is better. *The netdev mailing list has had a long running
>> discussion on this issue. *The CTO of Dell and members of HP along
>> with others are / were active participants. *Part of the problem is
>> that an alias name may not be available to the kernel.
>>
>> Dell has their own software to bring determinism to NIC ordering.
>> http://linux.dell.com/papers.shtml
>>
>> One of Dell's programmers has proposed changing Anaconda to let you
>> choose at installation time the NIC naming convention:
>>
>> We have been having discussions in the netdev list about creating
>> multiple names for the network interfaces to bring determinism into
>> the way network interfaces are named in the OSes. In specific, "eth0
>> in the OS does not always map to the integrated NIC Gb1 as labelled on
>> the chassis".
>>
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=125510301513312&w=2 - (Re: PATCH:
>> Network Device Naming mechanism and policy)
>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=125619338904322&w=2 - ([PATCH]
>> udev: create empty regular files to represent net)
>>
>
> Do any of these approaches help with the scenario where you want to clone a
> system across many identical machines including future additions where you don't
> know the MAC addresses yet, and you'd like the remote operator to be able to
> insert a drive and have it come up with the right interfaces on the right
> network connections? *This was possible in Centos 3.x, but not in 5.x.
>
> --
> * Les Mikesell
> * *lesmikesell@gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
Yes Les.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
again, nic driver order
