FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-03-2011, 04:22 PM
Faidon Liambotis
 
Default network-manager as default? No!

On 04/03/11 19:08, Fernando Lemos wrote:

On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 5:11 AM, martin f krafft<madduck@debian.org> wrote:
[...]

last I checked, for instance, it was not possible to hook up two
network cards with DHCP.

[...]

Hmmm I do have two network cards and they both get IP addresses with
DHCP as I would expect (when they both are enabled).

Anyways, I don't think NM is the right solution for all proposed use
cases right now for a number of reasons:


It also can't do VLANs (.1q), bridges, bonds and all possible
permutations of the above. I'd speculate that it also wouldn't be able
to do things like 1k (or more) interfaces. It also doesn't support hooks
to be able to do more advanced setups, such as multihoming, policy
routing, QoS, etc.


And, above all, losing the network configuration, even for a second,
just because you restarted a daemon (or that daemon died) shouldn't be
acceptable for the primary network configuration of our distribution.


Regards,
Faidon


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4D989ED7.7050108@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4D989ED7.7050108@debian.org
 
Old 04-03-2011, 05:20 PM
Patrick Matthäi
 
Default network-manager as default? No!

Am 03.04.2011 18:22, schrieb Faidon Liambotis:
> And, above all, losing the network configuration, even for a second,
> just because you restarted a daemon (or that daemon died) shouldn't be
> acceptable for the primary network configuration of our distribution.

Full ACK.
I also made those experiences with two fedora servers, who are using per
default NM

--
/*
Mit freundlichem Gruß / With kind regards,
Patrick Matthäi
GNU/Linux Debian Developer

E-Mail: pmatthaei@debian.org
patrick@linux-dev.org

Comment:
Always if we think we are right,
we were maybe wrong.
*/
 
Old 04-04-2011, 08:33 AM
Rens Houben
 
Default network-manager as default? No!

In other news for Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:20:18PM +0200, Patrick Matthäi has been seen typing:
> Am 03.04.2011 18:22, schrieb Faidon Liambotis:
> > And, above all, losing the network configuration, even for a second,
> > just because you restarted a daemon (or that daemon died) shouldn't be
> > acceptable for the primary network configuration of our distribution.

> Full ACK.
> I also made those experiences with two fedora servers, who are using per
> default NM

Agreed. Back a couple months ago I was updating my home system over SSH
and when it updated network-manager it cheerfully downed the interface
and broke the connection, which in turn interrupted the upgrade process
so that the interface didn't come back /up/ either.

I don't know if that's been fixed in more recent versions; needless to
say I purged it and everything associated and haven't touched it since.



--
Rens Houben | opinions are mine
Resident linux guru and sysadmin | if my employers have one
Systemec Internet Services. |they'll tell you themselves
PGP key at http://marduk.systemec.nl/~shadur/shadur.key.asc


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110404083336.GD9600@proteus.systemec.nl">http://lists.debian.org/20110404083336.GD9600@proteus.systemec.nl
 
Old 04-04-2011, 10:56 AM
Jon Dowland
 
Default network-manager as default? No!

On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:22:47PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> It also can't do VLANs (.1q), bridges, bonds and all possible
> permutations of the above. I'd speculate that it also wouldn't be able
> to do things like 1k (or more) interfaces. It also doesn't support hooks
> to be able to do more advanced setups, such as multihoming, policy
> routing, QoS, etc.

Is it necessary for the distribution's *default* network-management solution to
handle all of these? If it could be easily substituted for another solution
that was better suited to tasks which a majority of users will not use, then
surely that is fine.

(although I'd like to get NM and bridging working more nicely personally, I
consider this more of a feature bug than an RC one)

> And, above all, losing the network configuration, even for a second,
> just because you restarted a daemon (or that daemon died) shouldn't be
> acceptable for the primary network configuration of our distribution.

IMHO this is a reasonable requirement, yes.


--
Jon Dowland


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110404105623.GC14389@deckard.alcopop.org">http://lists.debian.org/20110404105623.GC14389@deckard.alcopop.org
 
Old 04-05-2011, 07:43 AM
Faidon Liambotis
 
Default network-manager as default? No!

Jon Dowland wrote:

On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:22:47PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:

It also can't do VLANs (.1q), bridges, bonds and all possible
permutations of the above. I'd speculate that it also wouldn't be able
to do things like 1k (or more) interfaces. It also doesn't support hooks
to be able to do more advanced setups, such as multihoming, policy
routing, QoS, etc.


Is it necessary for the distribution's *default* network-management solution to
handle all of these? If it could be easily substituted for another solution
that was better suited to tasks which a majority of users will not use, then
surely that is fine.


True. ifupdown doesn't do those either by default; the argument was that
it's *extendable* enough to be able to do these via simple addon hooks.


Regards,
Faidon


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4D9AC81F.90600@debian.org">http://lists.debian.org/4D9AC81F.90600@debian.org
 
Old 04-06-2011, 03:54 PM
Teemu Likonen
 
Default network-manager as default? No!

* 2011-04-06T16:45:03+02:00 * Heiko Schlittermann wrote:

> Stanislav Maslovski <stanislav.maslovski@gmail.com> (Sun Apr 3
> 12:37:26 2011):
>> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 10:11:03AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>>> But if network-manager would become default and ifupdown an optional
>>> replacement, I would question Debian's capacity to make technically
>>> excellent decisions and wonder, how much we have been dragged along
>>> by "user-friendly distros" and slid off the track.
>>
>> I agree. If that happens I will seriously think about moving to
>> another distro (I have been using Debian since around 1999). Or maybe
>> to a *BSD.
>
> Using Debian (and partly supporting it) since about 1996: as soon as
> the network manager and similar tools become the default, it will be
> Debian's last days on my and our customers machines.

There is a pretty good technical discussion going on about this subject
at the very moment. If you have useful information to add to that
discussion please share it. Stating that "if you do this, I'm gonna
leave" does not help. Technical information is more useful. Someone who
really understands how different alternatives work could add valuable
information and opinions to the discussion. You know, everyone wants to
make Debian better and there is this usual challenge of having different
tools with different advantages and disadvantages. How to combine as
much advantages as possible?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87sjtvqssw.fsf@mithlond.arda">http://lists.debian.org/87sjtvqssw.fsf@mithlond.arda
 
Old 04-13-2011, 08:53 AM
Bernd Zeimetz
 
Default network-manager as default? No!

On 04/04/2011 12:56 PM, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:22:47PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
>> It also can't do VLANs (.1q), bridges, bonds and all possible
>> permutations of the above. I'd speculate that it also wouldn't be able
>> to do things like 1k (or more) interfaces. It also doesn't support hooks
>> to be able to do more advanced setups, such as multihoming, policy
>> routing, QoS, etc.
>
> Is it necessary for the distribution's *default* network-management solution to
> handle all of these?

Yes. For a distribution which is targeted to support servers properly, yes,
definitely. For everything else there is Ubuntu.


--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprints: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4DA56479.60803@bzed.de">http://lists.debian.org/4DA56479.60803@bzed.de
 
Old 04-13-2011, 09:11 AM
sean finney
 
Default network-manager as default? No!

On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 11:56:23AM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:22:47PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> > It also can't do VLANs (.1q), bridges, bonds and all possible
> > permutations of the above. I'd speculate that it also wouldn't be able
> > to do things like 1k (or more) interfaces. It also doesn't support hooks
> > to be able to do more advanced setups, such as multihoming, policy
> > routing, QoS, etc.
>
> Is it necessary for the distribution's *default* network-management solution to
> handle all of these? If it could be easily substituted for another solution
> that was better suited to tasks which a majority of users will not use, then
> surely that is fine.
>
> (although I'd like to get NM and bridging working more nicely personally, I
> consider this more of a feature bug than an RC one)

Except that it'd also be a regression from what's possible on current
default server installs, since it already works. And any regression should
be countered by strong motivation for why it's important to throw the baby
out with the bathwater, and hopefully some plans for going and finding the
baby later on.

Did i miss the part where somebody explained what the user benefit of having
network-manager on a server was? (apart from "then it's the same as your
desktop[1]", anyway).


sean

[1] although it isn't, unless you're installing gnome on your server, but then
you're installing a desktop not a server, and you'd get it by default
anyway, and then what's the point?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110413091127.GA19182@cobija.connexer.com">http://lists.debian.org/20110413091127.GA19182@cobija.connexer.com
 
Old 04-13-2011, 09:39 AM
Stephan Seitz
 
Default network-manager as default? No!

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:11:27AM +0200, sean finney wrote:
Did i miss the part where somebody explained what the user benefit of
having network-manager on a server was? (apart from "then it's the same
as your desktop[1]", anyway).


I don’t even know why NM should be on a normal desktop.
My first (and last) contact with NM was not a good one. I was doing
a remote upgrade of a desktop and suddenly the system was unreachable.
After a reboot it worked, but shortly the system was unreachable again.
Then I noticed that the default gateway was missing. The desktop didn’t
have a configured eth0, but two configured vlan interfaces. NM thought,
hey let’s configure eth0, and tried to configure eth0 via DHCP and
deleted the default gateway. Since then, the first thing I do is to
disable this crap. Besides I don’t have any desktop with WLAN interface.
So ifupdown is more than enough to configure the network.


Some people say that NM is good with WLAN. Maybe. Since I don’t touch NM
again, I always used ifupdown and wpasupplicant with success. But
I rarely use WLAN. If NM is really good with WLAN it should only be part
of the laptop task and never touch cable networks.


The only thing that I miss from ifupdown (and I configured bonds, bridges
and vlans) is a good IPv6 support. I can’t separately activate or
deactivate IPv4 or IPv6 parts of an interface.


Shade and sweet water!

Stephan

--
| Stephan Seitz E-Mail: stse@fsing.rootsland.net |
| PGP Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/pgp.html |
 
Old 04-13-2011, 11:26 AM
Felipe Sateler
 
Default network-manager as default? No!

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:53:13 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:

> On 04/04/2011 12:56 PM, Jon Dowland wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 07:22:47PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
>>> It also can't do VLANs (.1q), bridges, bonds and all possible
>>> permutations of the above. I'd speculate that it also wouldn't be able
>>> to do things like 1k (or more) interfaces. It also doesn't support
>>> hooks to be able to do more advanced setups, such as multihoming,
>>> policy routing, QoS, etc.
>>
>> Is it necessary for the distribution's *default* network-management
>> solution to handle all of these?
>
> Yes. For a distribution which is targeted to support servers properly,
> yes, definitely. For everything else there is Ubuntu.

Surely a person managing a server can do "aptitude install ifupdown
network-manager-"?



--
Saludos,
Felipe Sateler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: io418e$1pq$1@dough.gmane.org">http://lists.debian.org/io418e$1pq$1@dough.gmane.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:42 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org