similar to: Is there any benefit to using NetworkManager on a server with a static IP?

Is anyone frustrated by Network Manager? I wish CentOS just used the basic configuration files like the ones on BSD-style OSes. Those are so simple in comparison. Each time I reboot, it seems like the configuration file I create for Network Manager gets destroyed and replaced with a default file. Nothing in the default file would actually make sense on my network, so I'm not even really sure

On 03/08/2017 07:39 AM, John Hodrien wrote: > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Steve Clark wrote: > >> Yes it is really hard! >> >> ip address add 192.168.0.1/24 dev enp0s25 >> ip route add default via 192.168.0.254 dev enp0s25 >> echo nameserver 8.8.8.8 > /etc/resolv.conf >> echo nameserver 8.8.4.4 >> /etc/resolv.conf > This is still a deliberately trivial

On 08/03/17 10:38, John Hodrien wrote: > On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Giles Coochey wrote: > >> ifconfig enp0s25 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 >> route add default gw 192.168.0.254 enp0s25 >> echo nameserver 8.8.8.8 > /etc/resolv.conf >> echo nameserver 8.8.4.4 >> /etc/resolv.conf > > Oh okay, you really do want to back away from Redhat entirely. That's

On 08/03/17 10:52, John Hodrien wrote: > > It means you're stuck in your own hand crafted niche. Which is fine, > but it's > up to you to maintain the niche, or you find yourself using obsolete > tools > like ifconfig and route. > > I'd argue there's a gulf between keeping things simple and doing > things your > own way. > I'm sure there are

On 8 March 2017 at 11:15, Alice Wonder <alice at domblogger.net> wrote: > On 03/08/2017 01:57 AM, Giles Coochey wrote: >> >> >>> The recommended configuration for EL7 is to use NetworkManager unless >>> you have a very specific edge case preventing you from doing so: >>> >> The truth is a lot of us run servers that don't need to have their

On 07/07/16 05:36 PM, Digimer wrote: > On 07/07/16 05:21 PM, Joe Smithian wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> I see an unexpected beahviour from NetworkManager on CentOS 7.1. >> Using nmcli tool, I create a bond with two slaves as explained in the Red >> Hat 7.1 Networking guide. I enable slaves and master; bond works as >> expected. >> When I restart

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:29:56 +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On 2017?11?29? 03:27, Jesse Brandeburg wrote: > > Hi, I'd like to get some feedback on a proposal to enhance virtio-net > > to ease configuration of a VM and that would enable live migration of > > passthrough network SR-IOV devices. > > > > Today we have SR-IOV network devices (VFs) that can be passed

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:29:56 +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On 2017?11?29? 03:27, Jesse Brandeburg wrote: > > Hi, I'd like to get some feedback on a proposal to enhance virtio-net > > to ease configuration of a VM and that would enable live migration of > > passthrough network SR-IOV devices. > > > > Today we have SR-IOV network devices (VFs) that can be passed

Hi All, I see an unexpected beahviour from NetworkManager on CentOS 7.1. Using nmcli tool, I create a bond with two slaves as explained in the Red Hat 7.1 Networking guide. I enable slaves and master; bond works as expected. When I restart NetworkManager, it creates a new bond with the same name but not connected to any device. Two bonds with the same name is confusing for my other monitoring

Hello! For me it was best practice to disable "NetworkManager" on headless installations. Now suddenly I ran into an problem with several programs not starting correctly upon boot anymore. The problem seems to be that their unit files contain "After=network.target" but network.target wont wait till network is up and working, just waits for some low level network stuff.

On Dec 2, 2014, at 1:36 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: >> Again, I?m not really after a way to make this work without NetworkManager. > > What part of the breakage that NetworkManager does is good for a > wired, static-addressed server? If you disable NM, the network

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 20:26:02 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 04:52:05PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:41:32 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > As this scheme adds much complexity to the kernel naming convention > > > > (currently it's just ethX names) that no userspace can understand. > >

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

So, I'm getting an error where the network service and NetworkManager apparently don't agree on how to bring up vlans on bonded nics. Things come up if you 'ifup ..' manually. I thought I'd check if there were any updates, forgetting to fix what NetworkManger had done to /etc/resolv.conf and: http://centos.arvixe.com/7.0.1406/os/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 12] Timeout

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:36:56 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > It is a bit of a the chicken or the egg situation ;) But users can > > just blacklist, too. Anyway, I think this is far better than module > > parameters > > Sorry I'm a bit confused. What is better than what? I mean that blacklist net_failover or module param to disable net_failover and handle in

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:54:40 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 07:51:38PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:29:56 +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2017?11?29? 03:27, Jesse Brandeburg wrote: > > > > Hi, I'd like to get some feedback on a proposal to enhance virtio-net > > > > to ease configuration of a

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:54:40 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 07:51:38PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:29:56 +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2017?11?29? 03:27, Jesse Brandeburg wrote: > > > > Hi, I'd like to get some feedback on a proposal to enhance virtio-net > > > > to ease configuration of a

I had so much trouble putting Centos 6 guest VMs on a Centos 5 host that I finally switched to a Centos 6 host. I've not needed more that test VMs, so I've used Virtual Machine Manager on the old system, which worked pretty well, so I decided to create my first KVM guest machine. I noticed when I created it, I only had the options of NAT for my network interface, so I used that

On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:41:32 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > As this scheme adds much complexity to the kernel naming convention > > (currently it's just ethX names) that no userspace can understand. > > Anything that pokes at slaves needs to be specially designed anyway. > Naming seems like a minor issue. Can the users who care about the naming put net_failover

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 16:20:28 -0800, Siwei Liu wrote: > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 11:56 AM Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 14:36:56 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > It is a bit of a the chicken or the egg situation ;) But users can > > > > just blacklist, too. Anyway, I think this is far better than module > > > > parameters