Le 22/06/2016 09:08, Simon Hobson a écrit :
If you just use the default kernel naming scheme then you open yourself to the problem that udev was
designed to solve - that of random device names. I do have personal experience of that - boot with a
different disk (for maintenance) and eth0 & eth1 swap places (can't remember if it was
"stable" when using just the main OS). And I've first hand experience of the "two disk
controllers" problem where it really was random which disk was sda and which was sdb.
But once you go down the route of udev (or equivalent, eg vdev) and persistent rules, then
"eth0" is just a subset of "admin set interface name".
Udev solved the problem of the stability of device names: once one
interface has been named eth0, the same interface will remain eth0 -
without interference from the admin. But it does not solve the problem
which Rainer adresses: to match the device name with the visual
labelling, ie the need for a predictable matching between interface name
and what is written on the box, so that instructions to the user make sense.
Didier
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
