Re: [CentOS] again, nic driver order

2009-11-29 Thread Rob Townley
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > Rob Townley wrote: >> >> NIC ordering is a problem. Some say it is the multi cpu, some say bad >> BIOS, some say MAC address ordering is better, some say PCI bus >> enumeration is better.  The netdev mailing list has had a long running >> dis

Re: [CentOS] again, nic driver order

2009-11-29 Thread Les Mikesell
Rob Townley wrote: > > NIC ordering is a problem. Some say it is the multi cpu, some say bad > BIOS, some say MAC address ordering is better, some say PCI bus > enumeration is better. The netdev mailing list has had a long running > discussion on this issue. The CTO of Dell and members of HP alo

Re: [CentOS] again, nic driver order

2009-11-29 Thread Ross Walker
On Nov 29, 2009, at 3:27 AM, Rob Townley wrote: On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Ross Walker wrote: There was a kernel update maybe the move from C4 to C5 which caused grief with Dell hardware, where it reversed the order Broadcom devices are detected, still does and needs manual swapping

Re: [CentOS] again, nic driver order

2009-11-29 Thread Rob Townley
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Ross Walker wrote: > On Nov 28, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > >> Tom H wrote: >> Digging around google a bit more I came up with different rules, >> and >> fingers crossed, they seem to work! >> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:1b:21

Re: [CentOS] again, nic driver order

2009-11-28 Thread Gordon McLellan
The formula that ended up working for me: undo modifications to udev rules comment out the alias ethX lines that anaconda had placed in my modprobe.conf use HWADDR= in the ifcfg-ethX config files. slave interfaces have onboot=yes in them, despite no IP address information The nics are correctly i

Re: [CentOS] again, nic driver order

2009-11-28 Thread Ross Walker
On Nov 28, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > Tom H wrote: > Digging around google a bit more I came up with different rules, > and > fingers crossed, they seem to work! > SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:1b:21:4d:c3:e8", NAME="eth0" > # pro/1000gt > SUBSYSTEM=

Re: [CentOS] again, nic driver order

2009-11-28 Thread Ross Walker
On Nov 28, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Tom H wrote: Digging around google a bit more I came up with different rules, and fingers crossed, they seem to work! SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:1b:21:4d:c3:e8", NAME="eth0" # pro/1000gt SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:

Re: [CentOS] again, nic driver order

2009-11-28 Thread Les Mikesell
Tom H wrote: Digging around google a bit more I came up with different rules, and fingers crossed, they seem to work! SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:1b:21:4d:c3:e8", NAME="eth0" # pro/1000gt SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:e0:81:b5:7a:30", NAME="eth1" # in

Re: [CentOS] again, nic driver order

2009-11-28 Thread Tom H
>>> Digging around google a bit more I came up with different rules, and >>> fingers crossed, they seem to work! >>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:1b:21:4d:c3:e8", NAME="eth0" >>> # pro/1000gt >>> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:e0:81:b5:7a:30", NAME="eth1" >>> # internal 1 >>> SUBSYS

Re: [CentOS] again, nic driver order

2009-11-28 Thread Tom H
>> Digging around google a bit more I came up with different rules, and >> fingers crossed, they seem to work! >> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:1b:21:4d:c3:e8", NAME="eth0"  # >> pro/1000gt >> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:e0:81:b5:7a:30", NAME="eth1"  # >> internal 1 >> SUBSYSTE

Re: [CentOS] again, nic driver order (bonding)

2009-11-28 Thread Thomas Harold
On 11/22/2009 8:38 PM, Gordon McLellan wrote: > I have two servers with identical hardware ... TYAN i3210w system > boards with dual intel gigabit interfaces, and a PCI intel gigabit > nic. I'm running Centos 5.4, x86_64, 2.6.18-164.6.1.el5 > > Every other time I reboot, the nics initialize in a

Re: [CentOS] again, nic driver order

2009-11-28 Thread Tom H
>>> KERNEL=="eth?", SYSFS{address}=="00:21:e9:17:64:b5", NAME="eth1"  # >>> Now, all three network cards get assigned as eth0! eth1 and eth2 are >>> no longer found. The pci-express nics (onboard) get detected first, >>> and the pci nic is last, so it ends up "owning" the eth0 alias. >> Changing S

Re: [CentOS] again, nic driver order

2009-11-23 Thread Ross Walker
On Nov 23, 2009, at 8:29 AM, Gordon McLellan wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Gordon McLellan > wrote: >> Digging around google a bit more I came up with different rules, and >> fingers crossed, they seem to work! >> >> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:1b:21:4d:c3:e8", NAME="eth0

Re: [CentOS] again, nic driver order

2009-11-23 Thread Les Mikesell
Gordon McLellan wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Gordon McLellan > wrote: >> Digging around google a bit more I came up with different rules, and >> fingers crossed, they seem to work! >> >> SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:1b:21:4d:c3:e8", NAME="eth0" # >> pro/1000gt >> SUBSYSTEM

Re: [CentOS] again, nic driver order

2009-11-23 Thread Gordon McLellan
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Gordon McLellan wrote: > Digging around google a bit more I came up with different rules, and > fingers crossed, they seem to work! > > SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:1b:21:4d:c3:e8", NAME="eth0"  # > pro/1000gt > SUBSYSTEM=="net", SYSFS{address}=="00:e0:81

Re: [CentOS] again, nic driver order

2009-11-23 Thread Gordon McLellan
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Tom H wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Gordon McLellan > wrote: >> KERNEL=="eth?", SYSFS{address}=="00:21:e9:17:64:b5", NAME="eth1"  # >> Now, all three network cards get assigned as eth0! eth1 and eth2 are >> no longer found. The pci-express nics (onboa

Re: [CentOS] again, nic driver order

2009-11-22 Thread Tom H
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Gordon McLellan wrote: > The archives seem to suggest fiddling with udev to > be the answer.  So I modify /etc/udev/rules.d/60-net (or something) > and add a few rules found in an ancient example (those aren't my mac > addresses): > KERNEL=="eth?", SYSFS{address}==