On 9 April 2013, at 19:56, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 06:02:38AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote
>
>> Personally, I didn't know people still used LILO (no flame intended, I
>> just didn't realize it was still alive and kicking), but then gentoo was
>> my first real experience with linu
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 12:12:30 -0600, Joseph wrote:
> If the boys with the servers, with more than two networks cards wants
> to have consistent naming they should have made it optional and not
> push this "new name crap" on everybody.
It is optional - RTFN!
--
Neil Bothwick
Suicide is the most
On 04/08/13 04:36, Stroller wrote:
The new naming scheme, however, is much less intuitive. Where originally I just
immediately use eth0, now I have to enumerate the monikers first, because even
between servers of the same model (let's say, HP's DL360 G7), the PCI
attachment point might diffe
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 10:35:28PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
> AFAICT, on-board NICs have sequential MAC Adresses, with the one labeled
> "Port 1" has the smallest MAC Address. So far, *all* Linux distros I've
> used on a server will reliably name "Port X" as "eth$((X-1))". So it's
> never a pu
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 09:12:15AM +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
> >
> > Steady on, old chap! By "it" I was meaning the general inconvenience
> > all round occasioned by the changes between udev-{197,200}. Not
> > everybody encountered this. For example Dale, and Walt D. didn't have
> > to do
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 10:30:10AM -0600, Joseph wrote
> In my opinion this new udev-200 naming port is a big screw-up; I
> wouldn't be surprised if few months down the road we will go back
> to old naming because of misunderstandings.
Some time ago, after udevd was subsumed into the systemd ta
On 7 April 2013, at 16:35, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2013 3:56 PM, "Stroller" wrote:
>
>> AIUI the motive for these changes are so that you can unpack an
>> enterprise-type server, the ones with two NICs on the motherboard, and
>> always know which NIC is which. You can then unpack a pal
On Apr 7, 2013 8:13 AM, "William Kenworthy" wrote:
>
> On 07/04/13 01:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > 'Evening, Alan.
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 06:36:07PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >> On 06/04/2013 17:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the s
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 12:03:21 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > But not actually empty. If you are correct, and I suspect you are,
> > then the news item is poorly worded. No effective content is not the
> > same as no content at all.
>
> Oh, I agree that it was poorly worded, I was just pointing out
On 2013-04-07 12:18 PM, Jarry wrote:
On 07-Apr-13 18:03, Tanstaafl wrote:
Every sysadmin knows (or should know) that a config file full of nothing
but comments isn't going to do *anything* other than provide whatever
defaults the program is designed to use in such a case.
True, but only if ad
On 04/07/13 22:35, Pandu Poluan wrote:
[snip]
AFAICT, on-board NICs have sequential MAC Adresses, with the one
labeled "Port 1" has the smallest MAC Address. So far, *all* Linux
distros I've used on a server will reliably name "Port X" as
"eth$((X-1))". So it's never a puzzle as to whic
On 07-Apr-13 18:03, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE,
Well... even I know enough to reas
On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE,
Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means
On Apr 7, 2013 3:56 PM, "Stroller" wrote:
>
>
> On 7 April 2013, at 07:00, Joseph wrote:
> > ...
> > Are these new udev rules going across all Linux distros or this is
something specific to Gentoo?
>
> I would assume across all distros.
>
> Gentoo generally makes a policy of just packaging whateve
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
> > nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE,
>
> Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means
> no UNcommented lines. Comments a
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 09:12:15 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
> I didnt get hit either either, but ("STRONG" hint") ... I use eudev, so
> dies Dale and I believe Walt uses mdev. Time for those in server
> environments to jump ship?
Except the problems that udev is trying to avoid are more likely
On 7 April 2013, at 07:00, Joseph wrote:
> ...
> Are these new udev rules going across all Linux distros or this is something
> specific to Gentoo?
I would assume across all distros.
Gentoo generally makes a policy of just packaging whatever upstream offers. In
fact, the origins of the ebuil
On 04/07/13 04:06, Stroller wrote:
On 6 April 2013, at 16:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
...
Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and
typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to
IP6? These are our DB servers and why me!!! Why ME!
No, it's not
On 6 April 2013, at 16:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> ...
>> Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and
>> typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to
>> IP6? These are our DB servers and why me!!! Why ME!
>
> No, it's not just you, it's happened
The problem with eudev is that we are using the hardened profile and not sure
if it is part of our source tree. Right now, I just would like to
pinpoint this stubborn
little issue
I just wanted to mention that name did not change. ifconfig eth0 still pulls up
the interface, and same for ifconf
On 07/04/13 01:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> 'Evening, Alan.
>
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 06:36:07PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 06/04/2013 17:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and
> typing the error message here. Did our configura
On 2013-04-06 1:50 PM, Jarry wrote:
Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE,
Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means
no UNcommented lines. Comments are just that, and if there are
Am 06.04.2013 21:33, schrieb Mick:
> On Saturday 06 Apr 2013 20:03:15 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>> Am 06.04.2013 17:57, schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
>>> Hi, Nick.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:51:42AM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
After updating our systems we lost network connectivity to the
>>
On Saturday 06 Apr 2013 20:03:15 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Am 06.04.2013 17:57, schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
> > Hi, Nick.
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:51:42AM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
> >> After updating our systems we lost network connectivity to the
> >> servers. When trying to start net.
Am 06.04.2013 17:57, schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
> Hi, Nick.
>
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:51:42AM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
>> After updating our systems we lost network connectivity to the
>> servers. When trying to start net.eth0 we got the following message:
>> /ib64/rc/net/wpa_supplicant.sh: line
On 06-Apr-13 19:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
STOP SPREADING THIS FUD
It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people who
blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news
announcement, who did not read the CLEARLY WORDED wiki article at
freedesktop.org or alte
'Evening, Alan.
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 06:36:07PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 06/04/2013 17:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> >> Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and
> >> > typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to
> >> > IP6? These are our
On 06/04/2013 17:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and
>> > typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to
>> > IP6? These are our DB servers and why me!!! Why ME!
> No, it's not just you, it's happened to pretty mu
Hi, Nick.
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:51:42AM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
> After updating our systems we lost network connectivity to the
> servers. When trying to start net.eth0 we got the following message:
> /ib64/rc/net/wpa_supplicant.sh: line 68: _is wireless command not found
> /etc/init.d/ne
After updating our systems we lost network connectivity to the
servers. When trying to start net.eth0 we got the following message:
/ib64/rc/net/wpa_supplicant.sh: line 68: _is wireless command not found
/etc/init.d/net.eth0: line 548: _exists command not found
Errror: Interface eth0 does not exi
30 matches
Mail list logo
