Ethernet Probe Order 2006-01-05 - By John Reiser
Back
Ed Wilts wrote:
>>A default of ascending interface number is simple
>>to understand, simple to implement, and takes care of requried
>>predecessors automatically.
>
>
> And the first time you have an Ethernet adapter fail, you will hate it.
> Suddenly your system will boot on the wrong networks and all hell could
> break loose. I have a lot of systems with 3 NICs in them and they're
> always predictable. I will gladly take a performance penalty any day of
> the week for a more predictable failure scenario.
You already have the option you want, namely HWADDR;
and I'm willing to let you keep using it.
Why can't I have the option I want, namely physical order of
interface cards in slots? I spend a few dollars more for good
quality cards. The only failures I see are the ports in
dedicated router appliances, never the ports on PCI cards
in computer chasses.
>>Again, administering HWADDR is painful and slow, particularly when
>>ascending PCI order is so easy to deal with.
>
>
> That's what people said about disk devices until one failed. Assuming
> the order of devices could very easily lead to massive disk corruption.
I never said to mount disks by device order. Filesytem labels make sense,
especially because in most cases I cannot even _see_ the disk drives,
let alone the filesystems. However, in most cases I CAN see the
Ethernet cables and the jacks. I have put color-coded boots on the
cables, and the ports on the cards I use also have status LEDs.
I do not appreciate a numbering scheme that ignores what I can see.
--
--
Taroon-list mailing list
Taroon-list@(protected)
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-list
|
|
