On 13 February 2017 at 16:17, peter.winterflood <peter.winterflood at ossi.co.uk> wrote:> > > > there's a really good solution to this. > > yum remove NetworkManager* > > chkconfig network on > > service network start > > and yes thats all under fedora 25, and centos 7. > > works like a charm. > > sometimes removing NM leaves resolv.conf pointing to the networkmanager > directory, and its best to check this, and replace your resolv.conf link > with a file with the correct settings. > > sorry if this upsets the people who maintain network mangler, but its > inappropriate on a server. > >This is terribly bad advice I'm afraid ... https://access.redhat.com/solutions/783533 The legacy network service is a fragile compilation of shell scripts (which is why certain changes like some bonding or tagging alterations require a full system restart or very careful unpicking manually with ip) and is effectively deprecated in RHEL at this time due to major bug fixes only but no feature work. You really should have a read through this as well: https://www.hogarthuk.com/?q=node/8 On EL6 yes NM should be removed on anything but a wifi system but on EL7 unless you fall into a specific edge case as per the network docs: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html-single/Networking_Guide/index.html you really should be using NM for a variety of reasons. Incidentally Mark, this had nothing to do with systemd ... I wish you would pick your topics a little more appropriately rather than tempting the usual flames.
peter.winterflood
2017-Feb-13 17:36 UTC
[CentOS] CentOS 7, systemd, NetworkMangler, oh, my
On 13/02/17 16:49, James Hogarth wrote:> On 13 February 2017 at 16:17, peter.winterflood > <peter.winterflood at ossi.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >> there's a really good solution to this. >> >> yum remove NetworkManager* >> >> chkconfig network on >> >> service network start >> >> and yes thats all under fedora 25, and centos 7. >> >> works like a charm. >> >> sometimes removing NM leaves resolv.conf pointing to the networkmanager >> directory, and its best to check this, and replace your resolv.conf link >> with a file with the correct settings. >> >> sorry if this upsets the people who maintain network mangler, but its >> inappropriate on a server. >> >> > This is terribly bad advice I'm afraid ... > > https://access.redhat.com/solutions/783533 > > The legacy network service is a fragile compilation of shell scripts > (which is why certain changes like some bonding or tagging alterations > require a full system restart or very careful unpicking manually with > ip) and is effectively deprecated in RHEL at this time due to major > bug fixes only but no feature work. > > You really should have a read through this as well: > > https://www.hogarthuk.com/?q=node/8 > > On EL6 yes NM should be removed on anything but a wifi system but on > EL7 unless you fall into a specific edge case as per the network docs: > > https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html-single/Networking_Guide/index.html > > you really should be using NM for a variety of reasons. > > Incidentally Mark, this had nothing to do with systemd ... I wish you > would pick your topics a little more appropriately rather than > tempting the usual flames. > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centosJames This was not A flame at all, but another voice of frustration at the ongoing adoption of workstation like features of the Redhat OS. heres one of the reasons not to use NM in a server we use bonding on all our systems from that article you posted Certain interface bonding configuration options as defined by the BONDING_OPTS parameter in the interface's ifcfg file may not be compatible with NetworkManager. ( Solution 1249593 <https://access.redhat.com/solutions/1249593> ) in fact anyone who has tried to use bonding with NM will know why I dislike it. thanks for that, article, this next bug had caught me, on an older build , now its fixed, but the fix did not go and backfix a broken config. When transitioning from NetworkManager to using the network initscript, the default gateway parameter in the interface's ifcfg file will be depicted as 'GATEWAY0'. In order for the ifcfg file to be compatible with the network initscript, this parameter must be renamed to 'GATEWAY'. This limitation will be addressed in an upcoming release of RHEL7. one to watch out for on the removing NM, plus the resolv.conf one. Anyway, for anyone else, make you own mind up whether this is good or bad advise, test it, and see how your mileage varies, Ive had more problems with NM than ive had with initscripts. regards peter
On 02/13/2017 11:36 AM, peter.winterflood wrote:> On 13/02/17 16:49, James Hogarth wrote: >> On 13 February 2017 at 16:17, peter.winterflood >> <peter.winterflood at ossi.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> >>> there's a really good solution to this. >>> >>> yum remove NetworkManager* >>> >>> chkconfig network on >>> >>> service network start >>> >>> and yes thats all under fedora 25, and centos 7. >>> >>> works like a charm. >>> >>> sometimes removing NM leaves resolv.conf pointing to the networkmanager >>> directory, and its best to check this, and replace your resolv.conf link >>> with a file with the correct settings. >>> >>> sorry if this upsets the people who maintain network mangler, but its >>> inappropriate on a server. >>> >>> >> This is terribly bad advice I'm afraid ... >> >> https://access.redhat.com/solutions/783533 >> >> The legacy network service is a fragile compilation of shell scripts >> (which is why certain changes like some bonding or tagging alterations >> require a full system restart or very careful unpicking manually with >> ip) and is effectively deprecated in RHEL at this time due to major >> bug fixes only but no feature work. >> >> You really should have a read through this as well: >> >> https://www.hogarthuk.com/?q=node/8 >> >> On EL6 yes NM should be removed on anything but a wifi system but on >> EL7 unless you fall into a specific edge case as per the network docs: >> >> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html-single/Networking_Guide/index.html >> >> >> you really should be using NM for a variety of reasons. >> >> Incidentally Mark, this had nothing to do with systemd ... I wish you >> would pick your topics a little more appropriately rather than >> tempting the usual flames. >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS at centos.org >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > James > > This was not A flame at all, but another voice of frustration at the > ongoing > > adoption of workstation like features of the Redhat OS. > > heres one of the reasons not to use NM in a server > > we use bonding on all our systems > > from that article you posted > > Certain interface bonding configuration options as defined by the > BONDING_OPTS parameter in the interface's ifcfg file may not be > compatible with NetworkManager. ( Solution 1249593 > <https://access.redhat.com/solutions/1249593> ) > > in fact anyone who has tried to use bonding with NM will know why I > dislike it. > > thanks for that, article, this next bug had caught me, on an older build > , now its fixed, but the fix did not go and backfix a broken config. > > When transitioning from NetworkManager to using the network initscript, > the default gateway parameter in the interface's ifcfg file will be > depicted as 'GATEWAY0'. In order for the ifcfg file to be compatible > with the network initscript, this parameter must be renamed to > 'GATEWAY'. This limitation will be addressed in an upcoming release of > RHEL7. > > one to watch out for on the removing NM, plus the resolv.conf one. > > Anyway, for anyone else, make you own mind up whether this is good or > bad advise, test it, and see how your mileage varies, Ive had more > problems with NM than ive had with initscripts.That is your opinion .. and there are thousands of engineers from almost every major Linux distro who disagree with you. I am personally fine if people want to turn off NM .. but that is not what any of the Enterprise distros are doing. Opinions are fine .. I sometimes turn off NM as well .. and for some cases it is best. But as Linux installs become more and more complicated and it is not some individual machines in a rack but clouds, clusters, and containers with software defined networking and individual segments for specific applications spread out within the network, only talking to one another .. etc. Well, NM will be much more important. I get it .. but no one needed a hand held cell phone before 1973 and no one needed a smart phone before 2007. Now, almost everyone has a smart cell and land lines are dying. Technology moves forward. People want integrated cloud, container, SDN technology, etc. Used a VCR or Cassette Player lately? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20170214/3cc9e101/attachment-0001.sig>
On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 16:49 +0000, James Hogarth wrote:> On EL6 yes NM should be removed on anything but a wifi system but on > EL7 unless you fall into a specific edge case as per the network docs: > > https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html-single/Networking_Guide/index.html > > you really should be using NM for a variety of reasons. > > Incidentally Mark, this had nothing to do with systemd ... I wish you > would pick your topics a little more appropriately rather than > tempting the usual flames.Mark actually gets his hands dirty running the systems (on C7). He has a valid point which worries me - Red Hat's gradual imitation of Micro $oft's aversion to ordinary people understanding and controlling their systems. Luckily some of us remain on C6 because we love simplicity and stability. When C6 expires some will migrate to BSD rather than face C7's persistent difficulties and confusion. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. England's place is in the European Union.
On 15 Feb 2017 16:40, "Always Learning" <centos at u68.u22.net> wrote: On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 16:49 +0000, James Hogarth wrote:> On EL6 yes NM should be removed on anything but a wifi system but on > EL7 unless you fall into a specific edge case as per the network docs: > > https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html-single/Networking_Guide/index.html> > you really should be using NM for a variety of reasons. > > Incidentally Mark, this had nothing to do with systemd ... I wish you > would pick your topics a little more appropriately rather than > tempting the usual flames.Mark actually gets his hands dirty running the systems (on C7). He has a valid point which worries me - Red Hat's gradual imitation of Micro $oft's aversion to ordinary people understanding and controlling their systems. Luckily some of us remain on C6 because we love simplicity and stability. When C6 expires some will migrate to BSD rather than face C7's persistent difficulties and confusion. And no he doesn't have a point because that's nonsense And course with the subject chosen this whole thread burned into flames rather than being constructive Can we just kill this now and if there is actually something wrong have a fresh thread with diagnostics?