And to add to the issues concerning consistency, what if you have a fail over unit and you're replicating configuration (i.e. NIC), you really prefer that NIC names remain the same. Given the hardware morass underneath all of this, the only safe choice (regardless of whether you use systemd, init scripts, whatever) is to take control and force the association of the name to the MAC address in the appropriate file. It doesn't allow total configuration replication but it does allow enough (with judicious use of segregation) to be useful. This does concern me, another post referred to the heavy-handed way in which systemd has been implemented and I totally agree. "You will conform" - no exceptions. What I fear is that we will lose the ability to control the name, MAC address association at some future point because "no one needs to do that" (speaking from their ivory tower). ----- Original Message ----- From: "John R Pierce" <pierce at hogranch.com> To: "centos" <centos at centos.org> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2017 4:36:48 PM Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll On 4/10/2017 2:27 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:> 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 deservebus address is a somewhat nebulous concept on PCI, afaik, its not neccessarily slot specific. its even messier on things like USB -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS at centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:02:56AM -0500, Leroy Tennison wrote:> This does concern me, another post referred to the heavy-handed way > in which systemd has been implemented and I totally agree. "You > will conform" - no exceptions. What I fear is that we will lose the > ability to control the name, MAC address association at some future > point because "no one needs to do that" (speaking from their ivory > tower).To be honest, if you use systemd-networkd (instead of NM or the network init script), you can arbitrarily name your interfaces whatever you want, in a much more configuration-management-friendly way. It's just that systemd-networkd isn't that well-known yet. I'm on the fence about whether I like it or not. It is nice that its really simple files and consistent across distros, but it doesn't yet do stuff like wifi well. Also, most GNOME desktops have a NM applet that gets confused if you're using systemd-networkd. I still feel like systemd-networkd is a lot less convoluted than NetworkManager. https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-networkd.service.html -- Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org>
Jonathan Billings wrote:> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:02:56AM -0500, Leroy Tennison wrote: >> This does concern me, another post referred to the heavy-handed way >> in which systemd has been implemented and I totally agree. "You >> will conform" - no exceptions. What I fear is that we will lose the >> ability to control the name, MAC address association at some future >> point because "no one needs to do that" (speaking from their ivory >> tower). > > To be honest, if you use systemd-networkd (instead of NM or the network > init script), you can arbitrarily name your interfaces whatever youwant, in a> much more configuration-management-friendly way. > > It's just that systemd-networkd isn't that well-known yet. I'm on the > fence about whether I like it or not. It is nice that its really simplefiles> and consistent across distros, but it doesn't yet do stuff like wifi well. > Also, most GNOME desktops have a NM applet that gets confused if you'reusing> systemd-networkd. I still feel like systemd-networkd is a lot less > convoluted than NetworkManager. > > https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-networkd.service.htmlI may need to look into that. I mean, I've disliked NM since I first saw it in 6. I mean, why would I want it to even try wpa-supplicant on a wired network? And perhaps for home users or laptops, but for a server install, I NEVER want avahi running. mark "Do what I tell you to do, and stop trying to think you know better"
Interesting, I'm going to have to look into this. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Billings" <billings at negate.org> To: "centos" <centos at centos.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 8:32:49 AM Subject: Re: [CentOS] OT: systemd Poll On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:02:56AM -0500, Leroy Tennison wrote:> This does concern me, another post referred to the heavy-handed way > in which systemd has been implemented and I totally agree. "You > will conform" - no exceptions. What I fear is that we will lose the > ability to control the name, MAC address association at some future > point because "no one needs to do that" (speaking from their ivory > tower).To be honest, if you use systemd-networkd (instead of NM or the network init script), you can arbitrarily name your interfaces whatever you want, in a much more configuration-management-friendly way. It's just that systemd-networkd isn't that well-known yet. I'm on the fence about whether I like it or not. It is nice that its really simple files and consistent across distros, but it doesn't yet do stuff like wifi well. Also, most GNOME desktops have a NM applet that gets confused if you're using systemd-networkd. I still feel like systemd-networkd is a lot less convoluted than NetworkManager. https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-networkd.service.html -- Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org> _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS at centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos