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 > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-17-2008, 11:34 AM
Jesse Keating
 
Default NetworkManager: I want to believe, but...

On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 07:28 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> So, the FeatureMoreNetworkManager wiki page says that NetworkManager is
> supposed to have new "Chuck Norris" features like supporting static IP
> addresses. It didn't work for me on a fresh F9 install, which then was a
> headache etc etc. (Even sytem-config-network had the right info, yet
> interface kept coming up dhcp.) So, as the Feature page says, it sure would
> be an advantage if it worked.
>
> Except, uh, what advantage does this bring me once it's set up? Why have a
> daemon and applet and dbus infrastructure monitoring something which by
> definition *is not going to change*?
>
> I'm not trying to troll -- I just don't get it. It seems like there's
> nothing in the "plus" column here. What am I missing?

Now this is interesting, because this same exact case works for me. Do
install, configure static during install, upon boot static comes up.

Please post your ifconfig files as they came from the installer when
things weren't working.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-17-2008, 11:37 AM
Gary Thomas
 
Default NetworkManager: I want to believe, but...

Jesse Keating wrote:

On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 07:28 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:

So, the FeatureMoreNetworkManager wiki page says that NetworkManager is
supposed to have new "Chuck Norris" features like supporting static IP
addresses. It didn't work for me on a fresh F9 install, which then was a
headache etc etc. (Even sytem-config-network had the right info, yet
interface kept coming up dhcp.) So, as the Feature page says, it sure would
be an advantage if it worked.

Except, uh, what advantage does this bring me once it's set up? Why have a
daemon and applet and dbus infrastructure monitoring something which by
definition *is not going to change*?

I'm not trying to troll -- I just don't get it. It seems like there's
nothing in the "plus" column here. What am I missing?


Now this is interesting, because this same exact case works for me. Do
install, configure static during install, upon boot static comes up.


What if you install via LiveCD? It doesn't ask anything about network
setup in this case.

--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas | Consulting for the
MLB Associates | Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-17-2008, 11:41 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default NetworkManager: I want to believe, but...

Gary Thomas wrote:



What if you install via LiveCD? It doesn't ask anything about network
setup in this case.


There should be pretty much no difference since Live CD's use Anaconda
to perform the installation too. Up until the last release,
NetworkManager was only turned when installed via a Live CD but that
isn't the case with Fedora 9 release and it is turned on by default
regardless of how you install it.


Rahul

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-17-2008, 11:44 AM
Gary Thomas
 
Default NetworkManager: I want to believe, but...

Rahul Sundaram wrote:

Gary Thomas wrote:



What if you install via LiveCD? It doesn't ask anything about network
setup in this case.


There should be pretty much no difference since Live CD's use Anaconda
to perform the installation too. Up until the last release,
NetworkManager was only turned when installed via a Live CD but that
isn't the case with Fedora 9 release and it is turned on by default
regardless of how you install it.


I was pointing out that Jesse's comment about setting up the static
IP *during* install doesn't apply in this case. That may be the
source of the difference in behaviour that Matt is seeing.

--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas | Consulting for the
MLB Associates | Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-18-2008, 12:04 AM
Bastien Nocera
 
Default NetworkManager: I want to believe, but...

On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 07:28 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 02:27:00PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > NM doesn't handle all usage cases yet, which is why the legacy network
> > stack is still available for people who need it.
>
> So, the FeatureMoreNetworkManager wiki page says that NetworkManager is
> supposed to have new "Chuck Norris" features like supporting static IP
> addresses. It didn't work for me on a fresh F9 install, which then was a
> headache etc etc. (Even sytem-config-network had the right info, yet
> interface kept coming up dhcp.) So, as the Feature page says, it sure would
> be an advantage if it worked.
>
> Except, uh, what advantage does this bring me once it's set up? Why have a
> daemon and applet and dbus infrastructure monitoring something which by
> definition *is not going to change*?
>
> I'm not trying to troll -- I just don't get it. It seems like there's
> nothing in the "plus" column here. What am I missing?

The pluses are that:
- it should be able to boot up faster (note the should)
- it informs applications that you're connected to the network (say, you
unplug the network, the router dies, or the driver for your network card
drops you off the network)
- and finally, it will allow routing over multiple connections in the
future (so static wired, and wireless routed over the wired, or all the
wired routed over a WWAN in case your internet connection breaks).

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-18-2008, 01:22 PM
Dan Williams
 
Default NetworkManager: I want to believe, but...

On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 05:44 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Gary Thomas wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> What if you install via LiveCD? It doesn't ask anything about network
> >> setup in this case.
> >
> > There should be pretty much no difference since Live CD's use Anaconda
> > to perform the installation too. Up until the last release,
> > NetworkManager was only turned when installed via a Live CD but that
> > isn't the case with Fedora 9 release and it is turned on by default
> > regardless of how you install it.
>
> I was pointing out that Jesse's comment about setting up the static
> IP *during* install doesn't apply in this case. That may be the
> source of the difference in behaviour that Matt is seeing.

The LiveCD does ask for network setup.

Dan


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-22-2008, 02:20 PM
Matthew Miller
 
Default NetworkManager: I want to believe, but...

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 07:34:35AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Please post your ifconfig files as they came from the installer when
> things weren't working.

I've messed around with it enough that I can't get the original behavior
back without reinstalling. And I had a few days unexpectedly offline, during
which it looks like some problems have been pinpointed, yeah? Would it still
be helpful for me to recreate?

--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-22-2008, 02:25 PM
Matthew Miller
 
Default NetworkManager: I want to believe, but...

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 01:04:43AM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> The pluses are that:
> - it should be able to boot up faster (note the should)

Because of delaying network initialization, or something else? I'm generally
not interested in boot time per se except in the sense of
time-to-fully-operational. (For machines with static addresses -- this isn't
the laptop case.)

> - it informs applications that you're connected to the network (say, you
> unplug the network, the router dies, or the driver for your network card
> drops you off the network)

I can see this being handy in some cases, but mostly, the network status of
statically-configured machines is generally best monitored externally.

> - and finally, it will allow routing over multiple connections in the
> future (so static wired, and wireless routed over the wired, or all the
> wired routed over a WWAN in case your internet connection breaks).

This can be done already with static configuration, but if it makes an
auto-fallback easy to configure that does seem like a plus -- but very
special purpose.


C'mon, seriously, is that all you've got?

The real major plus I see is: "It's good for the desktop, so doing it on
servers means it all works the same." But that's kind of a hard sell -- and
since in many cases I end up the one _making_ the sell, I'd like something
more to work with.


--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-22-2008, 02:34 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default NetworkManager: I want to believe, but...

On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 10:20 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> I've messed around with it enough that I can't get the original behavior
> back without reinstalling. And I had a few days unexpectedly offline, during
> which it looks like some problems have been pinpointed, yeah? Would it still
> be helpful for me to recreate?

I'd defer to Dan Williams. I think he has some updates coming that may
help.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-22-2008, 04:04 PM
Dan Williams
 
Default NetworkManager: I want to believe, but...

On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 10:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 01:04:43AM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > The pluses are that:
> > - it should be able to boot up faster (note the should)
>
> Because of delaying network initialization, or something else? I'm generally
> not interested in boot time per se except in the sense of
> time-to-fully-operational. (For machines with static addresses -- this isn't
> the laptop case.)

If you have a wired interface marked for DHCP, but no cable plugged in,
and ONBOOT=yes, the network service will block waiting until the DHCP
timeout. In general, you want connections to come up as they become
available.

> > - it informs applications that you're connected to the network (say, you
> > unplug the network, the router dies, or the driver for your network card
> > drops you off the network)
>
> I can see this being handy in some cases, but mostly, the network status of
> statically-configured machines is generally best monitored externally.
>
> > - and finally, it will allow routing over multiple connections in the
> > future (so static wired, and wireless routed over the wired, or all the
> > wired routed over a WWAN in case your internet connection breaks).
>
> This can be done already with static configuration, but if it makes an
> auto-fallback easy to configure that does seem like a plus -- but very
> special purpose.
>
>
> C'mon, seriously, is that all you've got?
>
> The real major plus I see is: "It's good for the desktop, so doing it on
> servers means it all works the same." But that's kind of a hard sell -- and
> since in many cases I end up the one _making_ the sell, I'd like something
> more to work with.

Many of the features of NetworkManager do make life easier on desktops
and aren't as useful on a server machine. So if you're just interested
in servers, the story shouldn't be any different with NM than with the
'network' service, except that NM provides a single source for
information about the network that programs can query.

If you're using a single ethernet adapter, statically configured,
without a desktop, and only running say httpd and samba, then no, you
probably don't want to use NM. You certainly _could_ if you wanted to.

If we're talking about GUIs, or more mobile machines like laptops or
mobile internet devices, or desktops in general, or multi-user systems
where finer-grained control of network devices is desired, then I can
list more advantages of NetworkManager.

Dan

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:53 PM.

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