On 06/30/2015 12:14 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote: > ❦ 29 juin 2015 22:29 +0200, Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> : > >>>> So your proposal is: if the default is unusable (like above), then the >>>> poor user has to find a way to fix that... I'm not convince that this is >>>> what we want. I'd very much prefer a usable default. >>> Me too, but there is none that we can use. >> >> Sure there is: keep the good old ethX naming, which has always worked >> for many, many years. Now, expecting someone will raise the fact that >> sometimes, we get a different order of the ifaces. Well, there's many >> ways around that, the persistent naming file is one solution (which I >> don't like, as I think it shouldn't be written by default, it should be >> the user's decision to write it if he wants to, but hey, let's not >> discuss that...). > > It has worked for many many years as long as the drivers were loaded > synchronously. This is not the case anymore. When you have two brands of > network card (for example bnx2 and e1000, quite common on HP servers), > at each boot, you can get something different. And while the persistent > naming file is a solution that worked almost all the time, there was > some time where an interface were renamed to "renameXX" due to a naming > conflict with the kernel. > > An alternative would be to use something like "emX". Only the first boot > would be "random" which might prove complex when deploying on a large > cluster of identical nodes. > > This has already been explained in this very same thread.
Thanks for explaining it again. I have to admit I didn't have time to read the (huge) thread entirely. Cheers, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55930e1e.7040...@debian.org
