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 User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-16-2011, 01:30 AM
inode0
 
Default Yep, names like p4p1 are soooo much better than eth0 :-(

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/16/2011 04:24 AM, John Aldrich wrote:
>>> On Thu October 13 2011, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
>>>>> The adults also realize that Fedora already has a process pretty much
>>>>> exactly as Thomas described, and participate in it if they want to.
>>>>
>>> Really? What is it? How do we access this wondrous special forum on
>>> changing device names on a whim of a dev?
>>
>> Nothing major like this gets changed on whims. *This change was done to
>> solve real world problems.
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ConsistentNetworkDeviceNaming
>>
>> The special forum is just linux kernel mailing list and fedora devel
>> list where this was broadly announced and discussed. *All major features
>> follow the feature process
>> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy) and gets voted upon by
>> the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee which itself is a body elected
>> by the Fedora contributors. * If you subscribe and follow fedora devel
>> list, you can follow all such discussions in the future.
>>
> A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
>
> Your description of the process betrays exactly what is wrong with it.
> *It's a hobby shop for geeks with a very narrow perspective on
> computers and how they are actually used.
>
> Even Microsoft tests changes on *users*. *Of course, Fedora is sort of
> a beta distribution for RedHat.

Everyone is welcome to help test new features.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-01-27_Network_Device_Naming_With_Biosdevname

Users can with very little effort become contributors in this project
and helping with testing is one of the places where people with just
about any skill set can make valuable contributions.

John
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 10-16-2011, 01:53 AM
Robert Myers
 
Default Yep, names like p4p1 are soooo much better than eth0 :-(

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:30 PM, inode0 <inode0@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2011 04:24 AM, John Aldrich wrote:
>>>> On Thu October 13 2011, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
>>>>>> The adults also realize that Fedora already has a process pretty much
>>>>>> exactly as Thomas described, and participate in it if they want to.
>>>>>
>>>> Really? What is it? How do we access this wondrous special forum on
>>>> changing device names on a whim of a dev?
>>>
>>> Nothing major like this gets changed on whims. *This change was done to
>>> solve real world problems.
>>>
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ConsistentNetworkDeviceNaming
>>>
>>> The special forum is just linux kernel mailing list and fedora devel
>>> list where this was broadly announced and discussed. *All major features
>>> follow the feature process
>>> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy) and gets voted upon by
>>> the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee which itself is a body elected
>>> by the Fedora contributors. * If you subscribe and follow fedora devel
>>> list, you can follow all such discussions in the future.
>>>
>> A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
>>
>> Your description of the process betrays exactly what is wrong with it.
>> *It's a hobby shop for geeks with a very narrow perspective on
>> computers and how they are actually used.
>>
>> Even Microsoft tests changes on *users*. *Of course, Fedora is sort of
>> a beta distribution for RedHat.
>
> Everyone is welcome to help test new features.
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-01-27_Network_Device_Naming_With_Biosdevname
>
> Users can with very little effort become contributors in this project
> and helping with testing is one of the places where people with just
> about any skill set can make valuable contributions.
>
So, let's run this process in the imagination. Everyone involved in
Test_Day:2011-01-27_Network_Device_Naming_With_Biosdevname has been
fully briefed on the changes and has their minds focused on them.
They have not just upgraded or something and are trying to get on with
business.

Let's suppose that one of these lowly testers is insufficiently awed
by the company he is keeping to say, "You know, this is really stupid.
Things that I have done from memory and flawlessly for years are
totally confusing and screwed up because of your need for
consistency."

What chance is there that such feedback would have any influence
whatsoever on a "major change" already decreed from on high? This
discussion is pointless. If you're going to argue endlessly about why
changing "eth0" to "p4p1" would be a major inconvenience to almost all
end users, there is very little point in discussing the matter.

Robert.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 10-16-2011, 02:01 AM
inode0
 
Default Yep, names like p4p1 are soooo much better than eth0 :-(

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:30 PM, inode0 <inode0@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Even Microsoft tests changes on *users*. *Of course, Fedora is sort of
>>> a beta distribution for RedHat.
>>
>> Everyone is welcome to help test new features.
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2011-01-27_Network_Device_Naming_With_Biosdevname
>>
>> Users can with very little effort become contributors in this project
>> and helping with testing is one of the places where people with just
>> about any skill set can make valuable contributions.
>>
> So, let's run this process in the imagination. *Everyone involved in
> Test_Day:2011-01-27_Network_Device_Naming_With_Biosdevname has been
> fully briefed on the changes and has their minds focused on them.
> They have not just upgraded or something and are trying to get on with
> business.
>
> Let's suppose that one of these lowly testers is insufficiently awed
> by the company he is keeping to say, "You know, this is really stupid.
> *Things that I have done from memory and flawlessly for years are
> totally confusing and screwed up because of your need for
> consistency."

The need is in data centers around the world, it isn't just for
someone's need for consistency in the abstract.

> What chance is there that such feedback would have any influence
> whatsoever on a "major change" already decreed from on high? *This
> discussion is pointless. *If you're going to argue endlessly about why
> changing "eth0" to "p4p1" would be a major inconvenience to almost all
> end users, there is very little point in discussing the matter.

For some users it is totally pointless and they were given a very
simple way to disable it.

Who do you think decreed this from on high? That isn't how this worked, really.

John
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 10-16-2011, 04:59 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Yep, names like p4p1 are soooo much better than eth0 :-(

On 10/16/2011 06:38 AM, Robert Myers wrote:

>
> Your description of the process betrays exactly what is wrong with it.
> It's a hobby shop for geeks with a very narrow perspective on
> computers and how they are actually used.

http://domsch.com/blog/?p=455

Your assumptions doesn't hold true really. This change was spearheaded
by Dell folks and has been under discussion and review since 2007 with
the broader Linux community including linux kernel mailing list. I
blogged in detail about this a while back

https://fedoranext.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/a-lesson-in-persistency/

Rahul
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 10-16-2011, 05:35 AM
Roger
 
Default Yep, names like p4p1 are soooo much better than eth0 :-(

On 16/10/11 15:59, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 10/16/2011 06:38 AM, Robert Myers wrote:
>
>> Your description of the process betrays exactly what is wrong with it.
>> It's a hobby shop for geeks with a very narrow perspective on
>> computers and how they are actually used.
>>
Isn't eth0 for ethernet?
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 10-16-2011, 06:16 AM
Tim
 
Default Yep, names like p4p1 are soooo much better than eth0 :-(

On Sun, 2011-10-16 at 16:35 +1100, Roger wrote:
> Isn't eth0 for ethernet?

Ethernet was badly named in the first place, it's carried by wires, not
going through the ether (wireless). :-

--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686

Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.



--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 10-16-2011, 08:26 AM
agraham
 
Default Yep, names like p4p1 are soooo much better than eth0 :-(

The real problem here is the designers of the concept lost sight of the
actual benefit to the user, the problem as I would state is:

"Provide a means that allows consistent naming of network devices".

That should have translated into eth0 is "ALWAYS" the first device, eth1
is "ALWAYS" the second device etc.. the biosdevname should have then
been used to create that relationship and _nothing else_.

If the device does not have the BIOS entries, simply fall back to the
existing scheme.

The above would have provided the "consistency" and "compatibility" I
think everyone was actually looking for and no one would even need to be
aware of the feature.

IMO this feature needs to be re-worked to meet this simple design goal
that will then benefit everyone, especially RH et al. because in the
real world, in any enterprise environment, this feature will be turned
off immediately due to the confusion it causes and no-one benefits.

Albert





On 10/13/2011 01:23 AM, Tom Horsley wrote:
> Especially when a new biosdevname package is installed and it
> decides the name is no longer p4p1, but is now p6p1.
>
> All the iptables rules that refer to the interface name
> are broken.
>
> The ifcfg-p4p1 file needs to be renamed and edited.
>
> Wasn't the theory propounded that these new names
> would cause less confusion?
>
> (And why was having some disks named hda0 versus sda0
> confusing, so we had to change all the names to sda0?
> Can these two theories be made compatible? :-).

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 10-16-2011, 08:34 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Yep, names like p4p1 are soooo much better than eth0 :-(

On 10/16/2011 01:56 PM, agraham wrote:
>
> The real problem here is the designers of the concept lost sight of the
> actual benefit to the user, the problem as I would state is:
>
> "Provide a means that allows consistent naming of network devices".
>
> That should have translated into eth0 is "ALWAYS" the first device, eth1
> is "ALWAYS" the second device etc.. the biosdevname should have then
> been used to create that relationship and _nothing else_.

Do read the feature description and related discussions. It's not like
you are the first person to think of this.

Rahul
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 10-16-2011, 08:48 AM
agraham
 
Default Yep, names like p4p1 are soooo much better than eth0 :-(

On 10/16/2011 09:34 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 10/16/2011 01:56 PM, agraham wrote:
>>
>> The real problem here is the designers of the concept lost sight of the
>> actual benefit to the user, the problem as I would state is:
>>
>> "Provide a means that allows consistent naming of network devices".
>>
>> That should have translated into eth0 is "ALWAYS" the first device, eth1
>> is "ALWAYS" the second device etc.. the biosdevname should have then
>> been used to create that relationship and _nothing else_.
>
> Do read the feature description and related discussions. It's not like
> you are the first person to think of this.
>
> Rahul

Yep, a few weeks ago I wasted a number of hours drilling down and
reading all the docs, email threads from the beginning and my conclusion
then was the same as it is now.

I agree in principle with this change, but not the "renaming" of
existing "well know" device names such that the opposite effect is
caused by the implementation.

Albert

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 
Old 10-16-2011, 12:27 PM
Tom Horsley
 
Default Yep, names like p4p1 are soooo much better than eth0 :-(

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 09:48:29 +0100
agraham wrote:

> I agree in principle with this change, but not the "renaming" of
> existing "well know" device names such that the opposite effect is
> caused by the implementation.

This whole thread seems to have missed the point I complained
about wayyy back at the beginning, which is that the "consistent"
name changed due to an update to the biosdevname package.

We've had folks in this thread talking about the challenges of
managing server farms with gazillions of ethernet ports on each server.
Just how helpful are consistent names if they change when the server
gets an update? Wouldn't that be fun on a server farm?

How is this consistent? The persistent udev rules based on MAC
address are looking much more consistent to me.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:48 AM.

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