[CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
127 messages Options
1234 ... 7
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

Anthony K
According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":

"All truth passes through three stages.
     First, it is ridiculed.
     Second, it is violently opposed.
     Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I
never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my
own scripts that I launched via inittab.  As such, I welcomed the
simplicity systemd's service files without fuss.

So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd?  Are you
still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

J Martin Rushton
On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote:
> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
>
> "All truth passes through three stages.
>     First, it is ridiculed.
>     Second, it is violently opposed.
>     Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
All ideas, true or false, follow those stages, but one hopes that the
false ones are eventually derided and toppled.


> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I
> never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my
> own scripts that I launched via inittab.  As such, I welcomed the
> simplicity systemd's service files without fuss.
>
> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd?  Are you
> still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
>
Accepting it as a fait accompli.  It makes life much harder for no
obvious gain, but short of creating one's own distro we seem to be stuck
with it.  To answer your question, a combination of proposition 1 and
the first part of proposition 3.

For those of us with (in my case) over 30 years in the industry, reading
init scripts is trivial and at least we can see what is going on and fix
problems quickly.  Some vague, poorly documented, data file which is
interpreted by a black box is the sort of joy one expects from the
murkier regions of Redmond not the sunnier climes of Carolina.


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

Nux!
In reply to this post by Anthony K
I'm ok with it as a init system, not much enthused by its ancillary components.

--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Nux!
www.nux.ro

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anthony K" <[hidden email]>
> To: "CentOS mailing list" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Sunday, 9 April, 2017 05:39:59
> Subject: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
>
> "All truth passes through three stages.
>     First, it is ridiculed.
>     Second, it is violently opposed.
>     Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
>
> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I
> never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my
> own scripts that I launched via inittab.  As such, I welcomed the
> simplicity systemd's service files without fuss.
>
> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd?  Are you
> still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

John R Pierce
In reply to this post by Anthony K
On 4/8/2017 9:39 PM, Anthony K wrote:
>
> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd?  Are you
> still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?

I wish the documentation was a bit better.   systemd and networkmanager
definitely change the rules...  I had a minimal C7 VM where I had a heck
of a time getting it to use the right DNS servers, only way I got it set
up was to use nmtui, my attempts at using nmcli were an exercise in
frustration.    maybe this is more of a networkmanager problem more than
systemd, but they are both tied together in my mind.


--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

Kay Schenk
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 2:20 AM, John R Pierce <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 4/8/2017 9:39 PM, Anthony K wrote:
>
>>
>> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd?  Are you
>> still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
>>
>
> I wish the documentation was a bit better.   systemd and networkmanager
> definitely change the rules...  I had a minimal C7 VM where I had a heck of
> a time getting it to use the right DNS servers, only way I got it set up
> was to use nmtui, my attempts at using nmcli were an exercise in
> frustration.    maybe this is more of a networkmanager problem more than
> systemd, but they are both tied together in my mind.
>

​Yes, lack of documentation is a big bug-a-boo in my mind also. However, I
do think working with systemd is a bit like working with udev​

​ hooks. My first experience with systemd was probably back in late 2011.
In any case, the RH documentation on it may be beneficial at this point:


https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/System_Administrators_Guide/chap-Managing_Services_with_systemd.html

or maybe take a look at the Fedora projects info:

https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/


>
> --
> john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Every time you hear a bell ring,
 it means that some angel's just got his wings."
          -- Clarence, "It's a Wonderful Life"
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
ken
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

ken
In reply to this post by J Martin Rushton
On 04/09/2017 04:30 AM, J Martin Rushton wrote:

> On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote:
>> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
>>
>> "All truth passes through three stages.
>>      First, it is ridiculed.
>>      Second, it is violently opposed.
>>      Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
> All ideas, true or false, follow those stages, but one hopes that the
> false ones are eventually derided and toppled.
>
>
>> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I
>> never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my
>> own scripts that I launched via inittab.  As such, I welcomed the
>> simplicity systemd's service files without fuss.
>>
>> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd?  Are you
>> still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
>>
> Accepting it as a fait accompli.  It makes life much harder for no
> obvious gain, but short of creating one's own distro we seem to be stuck
> with it.  To answer your question, a combination of proposition 1 and
> the first part of proposition 3.
>
> For those of us with (in my case) over 30 years in the industry, reading
> init scripts is trivial and at least we can see what is going on and fix
> problems quickly.  Some vague, poorly documented, data file which is
> interpreted by a black box is the sort of joy one expects from the
> murkier regions of Redmond not the sunnier climes of Carolina.
>

I agree.  I never had a problem with init scripts.  Anyone who
understood bash/sh could fairly easily come to grips with init scripts.  
I have no idea where to look for whatever starts up services with
systemd.  What language is systemd written in...?  no idea.  Yes, I
tried reading docs, but they're so vague and inscrutable that I gave
up.  E.g., what is a "unit"?  Could they have picked a word more vague?  
What does "unit" tell us which "thing" doesn't?  Basically, a service is
either running or stopped... so what is "static"?  "Static" means the
opposite of "moving" or "dynamic".  How does "static" describe a service?

In short, although computer geeks generally aren't known for being good
at documentation, in the commercial world at any rate.  But this is
GNU/Linux.  We rely on online documentation and the open source
community to figure out problems and make improvements. Lacking sensible
documentation, it's hard to figure out problems. If problems can't be
figured out, we're faced with problematic systems.  And who's going to
tolerate that for long?  How is that an improvement over Redmondware?
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

Steve Clark-2
In reply to this post by Anthony K
On 04/09/2017 04:30 AM, J Martin Rushton wrote:

> On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote:
>> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
>>
>> "All truth passes through three stages.
>>     First, it is ridiculed.
>>     Second, it is violently opposed.
>>     Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
> All ideas, true or false, follow those stages, but one hopes that the
> false ones are eventually derided and toppled.
>
>
>> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I
>> never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my
>> own scripts that I launched via inittab.  As such, I welcomed the
>> simplicity systemd's service files without fuss.
>>
>> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd?  Are you
>> still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
>>
> Accepting it as a fait accompli.  It makes life much harder for no
> obvious gain, but short of creating one's own distro we seem to be stuck
> with it.  To answer your question, a combination of proposition 1 and
> the first part of proposition 3.
>
> For those of us with (in my case) over 30 years in the industry, reading
> init scripts is trivial and at least we can see what is going on and fix
> problems quickly.  Some vague, poorly documented, data file which is
> interpreted by a black box is the sort of joy one expects from the
> murkier regions of Redmond not the sunnier climes of Carolina.
>
>
+1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


--
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.*
Director of Technology
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: [hidden email]
http://www.netwolves.com

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

signature.asc (501 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

Valeri Galtsev

On Mon, April 10, 2017 7:29 am, Steve Clark wrote:

> On 04/09/2017 04:30 AM, J Martin Rushton wrote:
>> On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote:
>>> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
>>>
>>> "All truth passes through three stages.
>>>     First, it is ridiculed.
>>>     Second, it is violently opposed.
>>>     Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
>> All ideas, true or false, follow those stages, but one hopes that the
>> false ones are eventually derided and toppled.
>>
>>
>>> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I
>>> never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my
>>> own scripts that I launched via inittab.  As such, I welcomed the
>>> simplicity systemd's service files without fuss.
>>>
>>> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd?  Are you
>>> still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to
>>> it?
>>>
>> Accepting it as a fait accompli.  It makes life much harder for no
>> obvious gain, but short of creating one's own distro we seem to be stuck
>> with it.  To answer your question, a combination of proposition 1 and
>> the first part of proposition 3.
>>
>> For those of us with (in my case) over 30 years in the industry, reading
>> init scripts is trivial and at least we can see what is going on and fix
>> problems quickly.  Some vague, poorly documented, data file which is
>> interpreted by a black box is the sort of joy one expects from the
>> murkier regions of Redmond not the sunnier climes of Carolina.
>>

The same here. Could repeat that word for word. I fled what I could to
FreeBSD, but in that process systemd was just the last drop that confirmed
that my earlier decision to abandon Linux to the extent I can was right.
Whatever has to stay Linux sucks ... more time for any problem than it
used to.

Valeri

>>
> +1
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CentOS mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
>
> --
> Stephen Clark
> *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.*
> Director of Technology
> Phone: 813-579-3200
> Fax: 813-882-0209
> Email: [hidden email]
> http://www.netwolves.com
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

Leroy Tennison
Like you, I have been looking for alternatives to Linux due to systemd, SELinux, desktop environments gone way off course, etc.  What can and can't be replaced with FreeBSD or other alternatives (and why)?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Valeri Galtsev" <[hidden email]>
To: "centos" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 8:38:03 AM
Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

On Mon, April 10, 2017 7:29 am, Steve Clark wrote:

> On 04/09/2017 04:30 AM, J Martin Rushton wrote:
>> On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote:
>>> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
>>>
>>> "All truth passes through three stages.
>>>     First, it is ridiculed.
>>>     Second, it is violently opposed.
>>>     Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
>> All ideas, true or false, follow those stages, but one hopes that the
>> false ones are eventually derided and toppled.
>>
>>
>>> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I
>>> never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my
>>> own scripts that I launched via inittab.  As such, I welcomed the
>>> simplicity systemd's service files without fuss.
>>>
>>> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd?  Are you
>>> still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to
>>> it?
>>>
>> Accepting it as a fait accompli.  It makes life much harder for no
>> obvious gain, but short of creating one's own distro we seem to be stuck
>> with it.  To answer your question, a combination of proposition 1 and
>> the first part of proposition 3.
>>
>> For those of us with (in my case) over 30 years in the industry, reading
>> init scripts is trivial and at least we can see what is going on and fix
>> problems quickly.  Some vague, poorly documented, data file which is
>> interpreted by a black box is the sort of joy one expects from the
>> murkier regions of Redmond not the sunnier climes of Carolina.
>>

The same here. Could repeat that word for word. I fled what I could to
FreeBSD, but in that process systemd was just the last drop that confirmed
that my earlier decision to abandon Linux to the extent I can was right.
Whatever has to stay Linux sucks ... more time for any problem than it
used to.

Valeri

>>
> +1
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CentOS mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
>
> --
> Stephen Clark
> *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.*
> Director of Technology
> Phone: 813-579-3200
> Fax: 813-882-0209
> Email: [hidden email]
> http://www.netwolves.com
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

Alice Wonder
In reply to this post by Anthony K
On 04/08/2017 09:39 PM, Anthony K wrote:

> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
>
> "All truth passes through three stages.
>     First, it is ridiculed.
>     Second, it is violently opposed.
>     Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
>
> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I
> never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my
> own scripts that I launched via inittab.  As such, I welcomed the
> simplicity systemd's service files without fuss.
>
> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd?  Are you
> still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
>

I am using systemd, don't really have a problem with it.

It was different at first but so far I manage to have adjusted.

It's different. For better or worse I can't say, but I can do what I
need to do with it.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

Pete Orrall
In reply to this post by Anthony K
> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd?  Are you still
> ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?

I've never had to write my own init scripts before so I'm not feeling
the pain of others, but having professionally managed machines running
SystemD for a while now honestly I don't mind it.  While the language
used (units, targets) is confusing and documentation could be better,
there are some things I like about it more than SysVInit.

--
Pete Orrall
[hidden email]
www.peteorrall.com
"If there isn't a way, I'll make one."
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

Keith Keller
In reply to this post by Valeri Galtsev
On 2017-04-10, Valeri Galtsev <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The same here. Could repeat that word for word. I fled what I could to
> FreeBSD, but in that process systemd was just the last drop that confirmed
> that my earlier decision to abandon Linux to the extent I can was right.
> Whatever has to stay Linux sucks ... more time for any problem than it
> used to.

FWIW this is a distro issue, not a Linux issue.  Slackware still has not
switched to systemd IIRC.  I would imagine there are other distros that
haven't switched (yet).

--keith

--
[hidden email]


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

Chris Adams-2
In reply to this post by Pete Orrall
Once upon a time, Pete Orrall <[hidden email]> said:
> > So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd?  Are you still
> > ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
>
> I've never had to write my own init scripts before so I'm not feeling
> the pain of others, but having professionally managed machines running
> SystemD for a while now honestly I don't mind it.  While the language
> used (units, targets) is confusing and documentation could be better,
> there are some things I like about it more than SysVInit.

Yeah, the old init script setup was sorely lacking in some areas
(especially dependencies).  While there were well-written init scripts
that were easy to understand, had plenty of configuration options, etc.,
there were many that were largely unreadable.

I like to distinguish systemd-the-pid-1 from systemd-the-project; I
generally like systemd-the-pid-1 (it isn't perfect by any means, but I
think it is an improvement).  On the other hand, I dislike the scope
creep and "replace all the wheels" approach of systemd-the-project.

--
Chris Adams <[hidden email]>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

Jonathan Billings
In reply to this post by J Martin Rushton
On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 09:30:20AM +0100, J Martin Rushton wrote:
> For those of us with (in my case) over 30 years in the industry, reading
> init scripts is trivial and at least we can see what is going on and fix
> problems quickly.

As someone who has both debugged and written many init scripts, I'm a
big fan of the way systemd does things.  Every distro provided their
own shell functions, so you ended up with a debian init script, a
redhat init script, and usually some weird "kinda works everywhere"
init script that used neither and reinvented the wheel.

Quite often, what was going wrong was *NOT* apparent by glancing at
the init script.  How do you enforce limits on the service?  Run
ulimits in the script?  The service starts fine if you run
'/etc/rc.d/init.d/myservice start', but then if you run
'service myservice start', it fails.  On top of that, there's no
journal so you can't even *SEE* why it is failing during boot unless
it is kind enough to write an error to the console.  Hope you have a
crash cart!

Also, how configurable is the init script?  You had to hope that
upstream was smart enough to use environment variables that were
sourced from /etc/sysconfig/servicename.  Sometimes I had to do evil
things like put executable code into /etc/sysconfig/servicename which
fixed problems with the init script.

Also, that reminds me, there's no simple way to override some or all
of a packaged init script, except to provide your own alternative init
script that had a different name.  And don't get me started on the
terrible startup sequence rules.  I've seen several people who have
edited the init script itself and then had it replaced by a yum
update, breaking their service.  The RPMs don't mark the init script
as a config file.

>  Some vague, poorly documented, data file which is
> interpreted by a black box is the sort of joy one expects from the
> murkier regions of Redmond not the sunnier climes of Carolina.

I don't know... I find the unit syntax pretty simple to read.  It says
what processes are going to be run, what user it'll run under, you can
see what order it wants to be run, etc.  There are dozens of man pages
for systemd, each with examples.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of anger about some of the stuff that
systemd does.  But lets not reminisce about SysVinit as if it was
anything but a horrible mess.  systemd's best feature is that it
finally makes managing services better.

--
Jonathan Billings <[hidden email]>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

m.roth
In reply to this post by Pete Orrall
Pete Orrall wrote:

>> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd?  Are you
>> still
>> ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
>
> I've never had to write my own init scripts before so I'm not feeling
> the pain of others, but having professionally managed machines running
> SystemD for a while now honestly I don't mind it.  While the language
> used (units, targets) is confusing and documentation could be better,
> there are some things I like about it more than SysVInit.
>
Don't look at me - I still *loathe* systemd. Change for no other reason
than to put it on your resume, and write papers about.

Examples: is it service, or target, and where of many places do I have to
look to find a given service name? Why change names, such as rpc-idmapd to
nfs-idmapd? And I've just been fighting today, because I have to munge the
MAC address for a workstation, because they have old software that is very
usefull, and there's no budget to pay the company that bought the software
$15k (no kidding) so that they can shift the license to the new
workstation, and that's tied to eth0 and the MAC.

And *why* random NIC names? Quick, you've got servers from 5
manufacturers, of different ages... what's the NIC going to be called? Do
names like enp5s0 offer any convenience to *anyone* not a hardware
engineer?

And the binary message log.... At home, I'm staying on CentOS 6 until it
EoLs.

    mark

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

Jonathan Billings
I know this is systemd-punching day, but at least get your information
straight.  


On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 03:38:03PM -0400, [hidden email] wrote:
>Why change names, such as rpc-idmapd to
> nfs-idmapd?

Unrelated to systemd, as far as I can tell.  Fedora adopted new names
that made more sense, and it was incorporated into RHEL7.

>And I've just been fighting today, because I have to munge the
> MAC address for a workstation, because they have old software that is very
> usefull, and there's no budget to pay the company that bought the software
> $15k (no kidding) so that they can shift the license to the new
> workstation, and that's tied to eth0 and the MAC.
>
> And *why* random NIC names? Quick, you've got servers from 5
> manufacturers, of different ages... what's the NIC going to be called? Do
> names like enp5s0 offer any convenience to *anyone* not a hardware
> engineer?

Unrelated to systemd.  This actually started happening in RHEL6 with
the biosdevname feature.  systemd can handle the NIC naming stuff, but
it started happening well before systemd appeared in RHEL.

Having consistent device names is helpful when you've got more than
one NIC and you don't want to rely on the order in which the network
driver is loaded to define the interface name.

--
Jonathan Billings <[hidden email]>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

Nicolas Kovacs
Le 10/04/2017 à 21:57, Jonathan Billings a écrit :
> Having consistent device names is helpful when you've got more than
> one NIC and you don't want to rely on the order in which the network
> driver is loaded to define the interface name.

On my Slackware servers (no systemd, no funny network interface names),
I just edit /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules and switch eth0
and eth1 (and eth2 etc.) if needed.

Keep It Simple.


--
Microlinux - Solutions informatiques durables
7, place de l'église - 30730 Montpezat
Web  : http://www.microlinux.fr
Mail : [hidden email]
Tél. : 04 66 63 10 32
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

m.roth
In reply to this post by Jonathan Billings
Jonathan Billings wrote:
<snip>

>> And *why* random NIC names? Quick, you've got servers from 5
>> manufacturers, of different ages... what's the NIC going to be called?
>> Do names like enp5s0 offer any convenience to *anyone* not a hardware
>> engineer?
>
> Unrelated to systemd.  This actually started happening in RHEL6 with
> the biosdevname feature.  systemd can handle the NIC naming stuff, but
> it started happening well before systemd appeared in RHEL.
>
> Having consistent device names is helpful when you've got more than
> one NIC and you don't want to rely on the order in which the network
> driver is loaded to define the interface name.

In what universe are those "consistant" device names, as opposed to
eth[0...]? And how could it help automated scripts that you can run on
*any* system you're administering?

    mark

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

John R Pierce
On 4/10/2017 1:57 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> In what universe are those "consistant" device names, as opposed to
> eth[0...]? And how could it help automated scripts that you can run on
> *any*  system you're administering?

if I have a Intel gigE interface and a Marvell 10g interfaces, which one
is eth0 and why?

Say its Intel on eth0 and Marvell on eth1, if I then add another intel,
is the Marvell now eth2 ?


--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll

Valeri Galtsev

On Mon, April 10, 2017 4:17 pm, John R Pierce wrote:

> On 4/10/2017 1:57 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>> In what universe are those "consistant" device names, as opposed to
>> eth[0...]? And how could it help automated scripts that you can run on
>> *any*  system you're administering?
>
> if I have a Intel gigE interface and a Marvell 10g interfaces, which one
> is eth0 and why?
>
> Say its Intel on eth0 and Marvell on eth1, if I then add another intel,
> is the Marvell now eth2 ?
>

Without intent to contradict... I really would prefer them numbered
according to their bus address. Not in the order (or reverse order - as it
was once) of them been discovered. And if you add hardware with bus
address between those of eth0 and eth1, you will have newly added one
become eth1, and former eth1 becomes eth2. I know, it stems from old
idiotic habit to always look inside the boxes... call me an old UNIX
outcast. (No, don't, that would be a complement I unlikely deserve ;-)

Valeri

>
> --
> john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
1234 ... 7