Christopher Lemmer Webber writes: > Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > >> In our chat on IRC I mentioned that adding this "-nic user,virtio-net-pci >> bit", >> I mentioned that this gives me two eth devices: >> >> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- >> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 52:54:00:12:34:56 >> inet addr:10.0.2.15 Bcast:10.0.2.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 >> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 >> RX packets:3 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 >> TX packets:9 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 >> collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 >> RX bytes:1314 TX bytes:1286 >> >> eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 52:54:00:12:34:57 >> inet addr:10.0.2.15 Bcast:10.0.2.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 >> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 >> RX packets:11 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 >> TX packets:17 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 >> collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 >> RX bytes:1784 TX bytes:1706 >> >> lo Link encap:Local Loopback >> inet addr:127.0.0.1 Bcast:0.0.0.0 Mask:255.0.0.0 >> UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:65536 Metric:1 >> RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 >> TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 >> collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 >> RX bytes:0 TX bytes:0 >> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > I'm also seeing a duplicate network device as above. (Not sure if it's > causing problems or not.) > >> I noticed this yesterday while struggled similarly, and found that >> removing this bit from run-sh; like so: >> >> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- >> sed 's,-nic user[^ ]* ,,' >> /gnu/store/j8fqc160diq82da7913gpdlcjca45rhz-run-vm.sh > run-vm.sh >> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- >> >> and running "run-vm.sh, will create only eth0. I blamed this second >> eth1 device for my ssh'ing troubles...but I cannot reproduce that >> today...dunno! >> >> Greetings, >> Janneke > > It does seem like having two network devices bound to the same address > would be ripe for a heisenbug though, right? So maybe...
See bug#42252 for a continued discussion fo this issue.
