Re: eth0 : no such device

Quoting Lisi Reisz (lisi.re...@gmail.com): > On Friday 31 July 2015 19:59:40 David Wright wrote: > > Ironically, your suggestion yesterday (ifconfig) > > was not so potentially useful for a different reason (ifconfig might > > not be there), but of course you didn't have the context. > > I was sug

Re: eth0 : no such device

Le 31/07/2015 21:26, Lisi Reisz a écrit : > On Friday 31 July 2015 19:59:40 David Wright wrote: >> Ironically, your suggestion yesterday (ifconfig) >> was not so potentially useful for a different reason (ifconfig might >> not be there), but of course you didn't have the context. > I was suggesti

Re: eth0 : no such device

Le 31/07/2015 17:55, David Wright a écrit : > Quoting Diogene Laerce (me_buss...@yahoo.fr): ... > I was reluctant to make any comment on your first post because, at the > end of it, I wasn't sure how many computers you were using and what > was and wasn't running on them. > > Having in the past p

Re: eth0 : no such device

On Friday 31 July 2015 19:59:40 David Wright wrote: > Ironically, your suggestion yesterday (ifconfig) > was not so potentially useful for a different reason (ifconfig might > not be there), but of course you didn't have the context. I was suggesting it in a very specific context, and did know tha

Re: eth0 : no such device

On Friday 31 July 2015 10:00:06 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 31 July 2015 14:50:18 Bob Bernstein wrote: > > On Fri, 31 Jul 2015, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > To use my fixed address methods, which are officialy > > > discouraged by the list police... > > > > And what, exactly, pray tell, do those au

Re: eth0 : no such device

On Friday 31 July 2015 09:50:18 Bob Bernstein wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jul 2015, Gene Heskett wrote: > > To use my fixed address methods, which are officialy > > discouraged by the list police... > > And what, exactly, pray tell, do those august > personages ("the list police") preach? They have been

Re: eth0 : no such device

Quoting Lisi Reisz (lisi.re...@gmail.com): > On Friday 31 July 2015 18:15:14 The Wanderer wrote: > > I usually interpret "parse" in this sort of context to refer to machine > > parsing, not reading by humans > > Ah! I'll certainly accept that. I took it to mean: > 1. (linguistics) To resolve int

Re: eth0 : no such device

On Friday 31 July 2015 18:15:14 The Wanderer wrote: > I usually interpret "parse" in this sort of context to refer to machine > parsing, not reading by humans Ah! I'll certainly accept that. I took it to mean: 1. (linguistics) To resolve into its elements, as a sentence, pointing out the severa

Re: eth0 : no such device

On 07/31/2015 at 12:37 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > And no, ip is not easier to parse. It may be for you, and even for > most people - but I find it so difficult to read that it is hard to > get anything out of it. (And I do mean read - physically read). But > ip clearly gives more information - _if

Re: eth0 : no such device

On Friday 31 July 2015 16:55:45 David Wright wrote: > Yes, ifconfig's indentation > is prettier when you just want a quick summary, but ip is more > flexible and the output is much easier /to parse/. Emphasis directed > at Lisi :) :-) I wanted to be able to read it - and the OP had said that he h

Re: eth0 : no such device

Quoting Diogene Laerce (me_buss...@yahoo.fr): > Le 30/07/2015 18:35, Lisi Reisz a écrit : > > On Wednesday 29 July 2015 18:09:36 Diogene Laerce wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I have big issues recently with debian that I don't understand, maybe > >> someone could help on the matter ? > >> > >> First, de

Re: eth0 : no such device

On Friday 31 July 2015 14:50:18 Bob Bernstein wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jul 2015, Gene Heskett wrote: > > To use my fixed address methods, which are officialy > > discouraged by the list police... > > And what, exactly, pray tell, do those august > personages ("the list police") preach? Something tells >

Re: eth0 : no such device

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015, Gene Heskett wrote: To use my fixed address methods, which are officialy discouraged by the list police... And what, exactly, pray tell, do those august personages ("the list police") preach? Something tells me that what you jocularly term "my fixed address methods" are

Re: eth0 : no such device

On Friday 31 July 2015 05:58:28 Diogene Laerce wrote: > Le 30/07/2015 18:35, Lisi Reisz a écrit : > > On Wednesday 29 July 2015 18:09:36 Diogene Laerce wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I have big issues recently with debian that I don't understand, > >> maybe someone could help on the matter ? > >> > >>

Re: eth0 : no such device

Le 30/07/2015 18:35, Lisi Reisz a écrit : > On Wednesday 29 July 2015 18:09:36 Diogene Laerce wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have big issues recently with debian that I don't understand, maybe >> someone could help on the matter ? >> >> First, debian does not want to give me any network. I really say debi

Re: eth0 : no such device

Le 30/07/2015 15:29, Diogene Laerce a écrit : Hi, Le 29/07/2015 20:37, MENGUAL Jean-Philippe a écrit : Hi, What's the result of dmesg? In particular: dmesg|grep .fw? You can find the results here : dmesg -> http://pastebin.com/YPdmfkyG lspci -n -> http://pastebin.com/y6xEUfiL hmmm

Re: eth0 : no such device

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 03:29:01PM +0200, Diogene Laerce wrote: > Hi, > > Le 29/07/2015 20:37, MENGUAL Jean-Philippe a écrit : ...snip... > > > Eave you checked from lspci -n if the module of the kernel is the > > correct one? > > I think it is but I don't fully understand what y

Re: eth0 : no such device

On Wednesday 29 July 2015 18:09:36 Diogene Laerce wrote: > Hi, > > I have big issues recently with debian that I don't understand, maybe > someone could help on the matter ? > > First, debian does not want to give me any network. I really say debian > because I have 3 possibilities to run the OS :

Re: eth0 : no such device

Hi, Le 29/07/2015 20:37, MENGUAL Jean-Philippe a écrit : > Hi, > > What's the result of dmesg? In particular: dmesg|grep .fw? You can find the results here : dmesg -> http://pastebin.com/YPdmfkyG lspci -n -> http://pastebin.com/y6xEUfiL And I put /sudo lspci -vvv /as well as I didn't

Re: eth0 : no such device

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 08:37:31PM +0200, MENGUAL Jean-Philippe wrote: > Hi, > > What's the result of dmesg? In particular: dmesg|grep .fw? Maybe you need > some firmware? > > Eave you checked from lspci -n if the module of the kernel is the correct > one? Also, I don't believe the OP states whi

Re: eth0 : no such device

Hi, What's the result of dmesg? In particular: dmesg|grep .fw? Maybe you need some firmware? Eave you checked from lspci -n if the module of the kernel is the correct one? Regards, Le 29/07/2015 19:09, Diogene Laerce a écrit : Hi, I have big issues recently with debian that I don't under

SOLVED was: Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

Hi, Andrei! On Friday 15 November 2013 19:35:50 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 15 nov 13, 18:34:36, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > I did - and have just checked again. network-manger is preceded > > by a "p" if I do an "aptitude search network manager". Pity. > > Removing network-manager would be so simp

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Friday 15 November 2013 19:18:26 Glenn English wrote: > On Nov 15, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >> Re-adding the two etho lines should fix it all for you - unless > >> a reboot deletes them, somehow! > > > > it did. :-( > > Noob here. How about fixing /etc/network/interfaces, removin

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Friday, November 15, 2013 11:38:16 AM Lisi Reisz wrote: > Thanks, Andrei, > > On Friday 15 November 2013 16:15:20 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > On Vi, 15 nov 13, 15:06:59, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > I have just upgraded a client's computer to Wheezy. It appeared > > > to go well and there was certain

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Friday, November 15, 2013 02:18:26 PM Glenn English wrote: > On Nov 15, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >> Re-adding the two etho lines should fix it all for you - unless a > >> reboot deletes them, somehow! > > > > it did. :-( > > Noob here. How about fixing /etc/network/interfaces, r

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Vi, 15 nov 13, 18:34:36, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > I did - and have just checked again. network-manger is preceded by > a "p" if I do an "aptitude search network manager". Pity. Removing > network-manager would be so simple!! Ok, considering that your previous setup was DHCP I would try setti

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Nov 15, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: >> Re-adding the two etho lines should fix it all for you - unless a >> reboot deletes them, somehow! > > it did. :-( Noob here. How about fixing /etc/network/interfaces, removing all write permissions from the file, rebooting, and looking for w

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Friday 15 November 2013 18:40:23 Tom H wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Friday 15 November 2013 17:06:55 Tom H wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Lisi Reisz > >> > > > > wrote: > >>> On Friday 15 November 2013 15:55:59 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Fr

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Friday 15 November 2013 18:33:21 Tom H wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Friday 15 November 2013 17:05:04 Tom H wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Lisi Reisz > >> > > > > wrote: > >>> On Friday 15 November 2013 15:29:00 Tom H wrote: > On Fri, No

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 15 November 2013 17:06:55 Tom H wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Lisi Reisz > wrote: >>> On Friday 15 November 2013 15:55:59 Lisi Reisz wrote: On Friday 15 November 2013 15:29:00 Tom H wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Friday 15 November 2013 17:19:30 Tom H wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Andrei POPESCU > > wrote: > > On Vi, 15 nov 13, 16:38:16, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >>> How is the network configuration handled? Network Manager, > >>> ifupdown, etc.? > >> > >> /etc/network/interfaces file and ifupdown

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Friday 15 November 2013 16:59:28 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 15 nov 13, 16:38:16, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > How is the network configuration handled? Network Manager, > > > ifupdown, etc.? > > > > /etc/network/interfaces file and ifupdown, etc.. (Network > > Manager and I are not on speaking t

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 15 November 2013 17:05:04 Tom H wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Lisi Reisz > wrote: >>> On Friday 15 November 2013 15:29:00 Tom H wrote: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > I have just

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Friday 15 November 2013 17:06:55 Tom H wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Friday 15 November 2013 15:55:59 Lisi Reisz wrote: > >> On Friday 15 November 2013 15:29:00 Tom H wrote: > >>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Lisi Reisz > >>> > >>> wrote: > I have

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Friday 15 November 2013 17:05:04 Tom H wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Friday 15 November 2013 15:29:00 Tom H wrote: > >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Lisi Reisz > >> > > > > wrote: > >>> I have just upgraded a client's computer to Wheezy. It appeared >

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 15 nov 13, 16:38:16, Lisi Reisz wrote: >>> >>> How is the network configuration handled? Network Manager, >>> ifupdown, etc.? >> >> /etc/network/interfaces file and ifupdown, etc.. (Network Manager and >> I are not on speaking terms.)

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 15:29 +, Tom H wrote: >> >> Has eth0 been renamed? > > IIRC Lisi killfiled me. I'm aware that Debian still does use init and > not systemd, but since udev is part of systemd (merged by upstream), it > anyway might be

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 15 November 2013 15:55:59 Lisi Reisz wrote: >> On Friday 15 November 2013 15:29:00 Tom H wrote: >>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Lisi Reisz >>> wrote: I have just upgraded a client's computer to Wheezy. It appeared

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 15 November 2013 15:29:00 Tom H wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Lisi Reisz > wrote: >>> I have just upgraded a client's computer to Wheezy. It appeared >>> to go well and there was certainly an internet connection: it >>>

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Vi, 15 nov 13, 16:38:16, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > How is the network configuration handled? Network Manager, > > ifupdown, etc.? > > /etc/network/interfaces file and ifupdown, etc.. (Network Manager and > I are not on speaking terms.) I'd check if Network Manager didn't get pulled in during

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

Thanks, Andrei, On Friday 15 November 2013 16:15:20 Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Vi, 15 nov 13, 15:06:59, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > I have just upgraded a client's computer to Wheezy. It appeared > > to go well and there was certainly an internet connection: it > > would not have been able to upgrade o

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Friday 15 November 2013 16:13:23 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Friday 15 November 2013 15:55:59 Lisi Reisz wrote: > > Thanks, Tom. :-) > > > > On Friday 15 November 2013 15:29:00 Tom H wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Lisi Reisz > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > I have just upgraded a client's

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 15:29 +, Tom H wrote: > Has eth0 been renamed? IIRC Lisi killfiled me. I'm aware that Debian still does use init and not systemd, but since udev is part of systemd (merged by upstream), it anyway might be systemd related. [root@archlinux rocketmouse]# dmesg | grep rename

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Vi, 15 nov 13, 15:06:59, Lisi Reisz wrote: > I have just upgraded a client's computer to Wheezy. It appeared to go > well and there was certainly an internet connection: it would not > have been able to upgrade otherwise! > > Now there is none. I have checked /etc/network/interfaces and >

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Friday 15 November 2013 15:55:59 Lisi Reisz wrote: > Thanks, Tom. :-) > > On Friday 15 November 2013 15:29:00 Tom H wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Lisi Reisz > > > > wrote: > > > I have just upgraded a client's computer to Wheezy. It > > > appeared to go well and there was certain

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

# dmesg | grep renamed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1384531778.661.19.camel@archlinux

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

Thanks, Tom. :-) On Friday 15 November 2013 15:29:00 Tom H wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > I have just upgraded a client's computer to Wheezy. It appeared > > to go well and there was certainly an internet connection: it > > would not have been able to upgrade ot

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > I have just upgraded a client's computer to Wheezy. It appeared to go > well and there was certainly an internet connection: it would not > have been able to upgrade otherwise! > > Now there is none. I have checked /etc/network/interfaces a

Re: eth0 "disabled" after upgrade Squeeze to Wheezy

Hello Lisi, Is eth1 up? so check /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules for multiple entrys. Regards, basti || On 15.11.2013 16:06, Lisi Reisz wrote: > I have just upgraded a client's computer to Wheezy. It appeared to go > well and there was certainly an internet connection: it would not >

Re: eth0 or eth1

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 03:47:55AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2010-01-29 12:04:29 -0500, Stephen Powell wrote: [snip] > is said to be deprecated in favour of iproute (which now seems to > be called "ip"), which is in /bin. iproute is the package ip is the bin > -- "The fact that he r

Re: eth0 or eth1

On 2010-01-29 12:04:29 -0500, Stephen Powell wrote: [ifconfig in /sbin instead of /bin] > If you feel strongly about this, then I suggest that you > file a bug report against the net-tools package and complain > that ifconfig should be moved from /sbin to /bin (or some other > directory in a normal

Re: Eth0 disconnects from router?

>>>Approximately every hour, I get log entries like: >>>an 28 13:47:59 dovidhalevi pumpd[1819]: failed to renew lease for device eth0 >>>Jan 28 13:48:29 dovidhalevi pumpd[1819]: failed to renew lease for device eth0 >>>Jan 28 13:50:00 dovidhalevi pumpd[1819]: failed to renew lease for device et

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

In <20100210084608.gu14...@think.homelan>, Andrei Popescu wrote: >On Tue,09.Feb.10, 23:06:08, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> I don't know anything about these scripts. When do they run? Udev is a daemon, started fairly early in the boot process. It communicates with the kernel. It evaluates the rules

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:46:08AM +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Tue,09.Feb.10, 23:06:08, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > > Andrei Popescu put forth on 2/9/2010 3:37 AM: > > > On Mon,08.Feb.10, 16:33:39, Stan Hoeppner wrote: [snip] > > I don't know anything about these scripts. When do they run? And

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

On Tue,09.Feb.10, 23:06:08, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Andrei Popescu put forth on 2/9/2010 3:37 AM: > > On Mon,08.Feb.10, 16:33:39, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > > > >> So, are you saying it didn't happen? Couldn't have happened? Shouldn't > >> have > >> happened? I'm imagining things? Are you kidding

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

Andrei Popescu put forth on 2/9/2010 3:37 AM: > On Mon,08.Feb.10, 16:33:39, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > >> So, are you saying it didn't happen? Couldn't have happened? Shouldn't have >> happened? I'm imagining things? Are you kidding? > > No, I'm saying that under normal circumstances it should

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

On Mon,08.Feb.10, 20:07:36, Frank Miles wrote: > I won't belabor this. > > Putting in a different NIC fixed things. No fuss, though interesting that it > (presumably udev) wanted to call it eth2. I can live with that. Of course it did, eth0 and eth1 were already taken ;) Regards, Andrei -- Of

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

On Mon,08.Feb.10, 16:33:39, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > So, are you saying it didn't happen? Couldn't have happened? Shouldn't have > happened? I'm imagining things? Are you kidding? No, I'm saying that under normal circumstances it should work. > It broke. I fixed it by manually editing the p

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

I won't belabor this. Putting in a different NIC fixed things. No fuss, though interesting that it (presumably udev) wanted to call it eth2. I can live with that. Thanks again, everyone! -Frank -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsu

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

Andrei Popescu put forth on 2/8/2010 2:29 PM: > On Mon,08.Feb.10, 01:15:43, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > >>> Perhaps the kernel brings eth1 into existence by first establishing it as >>> eth0, then renaming it to eth1; then bringing the "real" eth0 into >>> existence. >> >> The above can happen when yo

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

On Mon,08.Feb.10, 01:15:43, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > > Perhaps the kernel brings eth1 into existence by first establishing it as > > eth0, then renaming it to eth1; then bringing the "real" eth0 into > > existence. > > The above can happen when you add NICs to the system. I hate UDEV for this, >

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

Frank Miles put forth on 2/8/2010 10:32 AM: > Thanks so much to Stan, Tom H, and Cameleon! > > It seems that the consensus is that it's a NIC problem. In case > it wasn't previously clear, the RealTek 8169 is part of the Gigabyte > motherboard. > > I thought that I'd escaped non-free-firmware he

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

Thanks so much to Stan, Tom H, and Cameleon! It seems that the consensus is that it's a NIC problem. In case it wasn't previously clear, the RealTek 8169 is part of the Gigabyte motherboard. I thought that I'd escaped non-free-firmware hell by getting a MB with the graphics based on an Intel ch

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

Hi Frank, sorry you're going through such pains here. Did the same myself not long ago. Frank Miles put forth on 2/7/2010 12:41 PM: > Feb 7 04:51:22 puffin kernel: [6.156559] r8169 Gigabit Ethernet > driver 2.3LK-NAPI loaded > Feb 7 04:51:22 puffin kernel: [6.156573] r8169 :02:00.0

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

... ok, started... [snip] I fail to see what it's doing, but I cannot see any reference to "eth1", it's like only one interace is being recognized :-? What is the output of "dmesg | grep eth"? [6.317161] eth1: RTL8168d/8111d at 0xc9c4e000,xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx, XID 083000c0 IRQ 32

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

>> [    6.317161] eth1: RTL8168d/8111d at 0xc9c4e000,xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx, >> XID 083000c0 IRQ 32 >> [    6.384830] eth1: unable to apply firmware patch >> [    7.190453] udev: renamed network interface eth1 to eth0 >> [    7.229390] udev: renamed network interface eth0_rename to eth1 >> [  

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:36:13 -0800, Frank Miles wrote: > [snip] > >>I fail to see what it's doing, but I cannot see any reference to "eth1", >>it's like only one interace is being recognized :-? >> >>What is the output of "dmesg | grep eth"? > > [6.317161] eth1: RTL8168d/8111d at 0xc9000

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

> I made a minor effort earlier to suppress the IPv6 modules, but [a] didn't > succeed Add ipv6.disable=1 to the grub kernel/linux line to disable ipv6 (without recompiling the kernel) but it cannot be the problem. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:36:13 -0800, Frank Miles wrote: > [snip] > >>I fail to see what it's doing, but I cannot see any reference to "eth1", >>it's like only one interace is being recognized :-? >> >>What is the output of "dmesg | grep eth"? > > [6.317161] eth1: RTL8168d/8111d at 0xc9000

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

he kernel brings eth1 into existence by first establishing it as > eth0, then renaming it to eth1; then bringing the "real" eth0 into > existence. > The "unable to apply firmware patch" seems potentially alarming, but it > used to work as a single-interface system.

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

[snip] I fail to see what it's doing, but I cannot see any reference to "eth1", it's like only one interace is being recognized :-? What is the output of "dmesg | grep eth"? [6.317161] eth1: RTL8168d/8111d at 0xc9c4e000, xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx, XID 083000c0 IRQ 32 [6.384830] eth1

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:41:46 -0800, Frank Miles wrote: > Thanks, Camaleon (sorry - don't know how to generate the proper > characters). Still "us-ascii"? ;-) No problem. > That file includes: > > # PCI device 0x10ec:0x8168 (r8169) > SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", > ATTR{addres

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

Thanks, Camaleon (sorry - don't know how to generate the proper characters). That file includes: # PCI device 0x10ec:0x8168 (r8169) SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0" # PCI device

Re: eth0 - eth1 confusion vs. local network

On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:07:03 -0800, Frank Miles wrote: (...) > There is one troubling line in the logs from boot: > udev: renamed network interface eth0 to eth1 > Doing an "ifdown eth1" does not fix the eth0 problem. Mmm... check your "/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules", there sho

Re: Eth0 disconnects from router?

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:24:35 -0500 (EST), David Baron wrote: > Stephen Powell wrote: >> As for your new problem, it looks like your DHCP server is set up to >> hand out 1 hour leases. If the DHCP server is built in to the router, >> as is often the case, that comes down to reconfiguring your route

Re: Eth0 disconnects from router?

> Approximately every hour, I get log entries like: > Jan 28 13:47:59 dovidhalevi pumpd[1819]: failed to renew lease for device eth0 > ... > Sometimes, it will stay disconnected (the above reconnected). I need to > manually ifup eth0. I reinstated a cron job to check and do this like I had > wh

Re: eth0 or eth1

On 2010-01-29 12:04:29 -0500, Stephen Powell wrote: > If you feel strongly about this, then I suggest that you > file a bug report against the net-tools package and complain > that ifconfig should be moved from /sbin to /bin (or some other > directory in a normal user's path). As you know, > "ifco

Re: eth0 or eth1

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:20:30 -0500 (EST), Tong wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:48:19 -0500, Stephen Powell wrote: >> One other item in the >> procedure that I neglected to mention is to edit /etc/network/interfaces >> to make sure that it says eth0 instead of eth1. > > Thanks Stephen for make it c

Re: eth0 or eth1

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 08:48:19 -0500, Stephen Powell wrote: > One other item in the > procedure that I neglected to mention is to edit /etc/network/interfaces > to make sure that it says eth0 instead of eth1. Thanks Stephen for make it comprehensive and complete -- I was luck to somehow have both

Re: eth0 or eth1

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:05:34 -0500, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > However, "ifconfig -a" does not redefine hardware interfaces and > is not a system administration task. Strictly speaking, that is true. However, this "user" was about to redefine his hardware interfaces; and issuing "ifconfig -a" was o

Re: eth0 or eth1

On 2010-01-29 10:07:51 -0500, Stephen Powell wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:59:23 -0500, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > For security reasons, it's better to run commands as > > normal users rather than root. > > I tend to be pretty cavalier about that stuff. Some people > go to seed on trying to iss

Re: eth0 or eth1

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 02:59:23 -0500, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > For security reasons, it's better to run commands as > normal users rather than root. I tend to be pretty cavalier about that stuff. Some people go to seed on trying to issue absolutely every possible command that doesn't require root a

Re: eth0 or eth1

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:37:07 -0500, Celejar wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:29:54 -0500, Stephen Powell wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:27:47 -0500, Celejar wrote: > > > No need to erase the whole file, or to shutdown / reboot (assuming the > > > relevant driver is built as a module). As I note h

Re: eth0 or eth1

On 2010-01-28 19:57:42 -0500, Stephen Powell wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:11:29 -0500, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2010-01-28 16:09:11 -0500, Stephen Powell wrote: > > > By default, ifconfig only shows active interfaces. Issue "ifconfig -a" > > > to show *all* interfaces. (You have to be roo

Re: eth0 or eth1

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:29:54 -0500 (EST) Stephen Powell wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:27:47 -0500, Celejar wrote: > > No need to erase the whole file, or to shutdown / reboot (assuming the > > relevant driver is built as a module). As I note here, just comment out > > the relevant line, and the

Re: eth0 or eth1

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:11:29 -0500, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2010-01-28 16:09:11 -0500, Stephen Powell wrote: > > By default, ifconfig only shows active interfaces. Issue "ifconfig -a" > > to show *all* interfaces. (You have to be root of course.) > > No need to be root! On my system you *do

Re: eth0 or eth1

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:01:46 -0500, T o n g wrote: > Thanks to Celejar & Stephen's help. I get it corrected without rebooting. > Here is my detailed steps: > > $ dmesg | grep 'ethernet driver' > [1795967.314420] forcedeth: Reverse Engineered nForce ethernet driver... > > rm /etc/udev/rules.d/70-

Re: eth0 or eth1

On 2010-01-28 16:09:11 -0500, Stephen Powell wrote: > By default, ifconfig only shows active interfaces. Issue "ifconfig -a" > to show *all* interfaces. (You have to be root of course.) No need to be root! -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 100% accessible validated (X)HTML -

Re: eth0 or eth1

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:17:21 -0600, Chance Platt wrote: >> One of My Debian has eth1 as the Ethernet card, while all others use >> eth0. There are only one Ethernet card in each system. Why the >> different? >> > Is there more than one NIC in your system? No, there is only one NIC in my system.

Re: eth0 or eth1

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:27:47 -0500, Celejar wrote: > No need to erase the whole file, or to shutdown / reboot (assuming the > relevant driver is built as a module). As I note here, just comment out > the relevant line, and then unload and reload the relevant kernel > module. I figured there was pr

Re: eth0 or eth1

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:09:11 -0500 (EST) Stephen Powell wrote: ... > If there is no other interface shown, look for a file in /etc/udev/rules.d > that has "persistent-net.rules" in it. The actual file name is > dependent on the architecture and the release of Debian. Look in this > file. You

Re: eth0 or eth1

T o n g wrote: Hi, One of My Debian has eth1 as the Ethernet card, while all others use eth0. There are only one Ethernet card in each system. Why the different? How can I have consistent 'eth0' throughout all systems? Thanks Is there more than one NIC in your system? If not, delete the

Re: eth0 or eth1

On Thursday 28 January 2010 14:53:47 T o n g wrote: > One of My Debian has eth1 as the Ethernet card, while all others use > eth0. There are only one Ethernet card in each system. Why the different? Network device names are controlled by the kernel, in cooperation with udev. I suggest looking at

Re: eth0 or eth1

Read my replay complete before go to the links. On 28/01/10 16:23, T o n g wrote: Hi, One of My Debian has eth1 as the Ethernet card, while all others use eth0. There are only one Ethernet card in each system. Why the different? "An explanation I saw in another post explained that with newe

Re: eth0 or eth1

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:37:47 -0500, T o n g wrote: > Hi, > > One of My Debian has eth1 as the Ethernet card, while all others use > eth0. There are only one Ethernet card in each system. Why the different? > > How can I have consistent 'eth0' throughout all systems? > > Thanks > By default, if

Re: Eth0 disconnects from router?

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:50:19 -0500, David Baron wrote: > Approximately every hour, I get log entries like: > Jan 28 13:47:59 dovidhalevi pumpd[1819]: failed to renew lease for device eth0 > ... > Sometimes, it will stay disconnected (the above reconnected). I need to > manually ifup eth0. I reins

Re: Eth0 disconnects from router?

> Jan 28 13:55:00 dovidhalevi avahi-daemon[2863]: Withdrawing address record for > 10.100.101.100 on eth0. > Jan 28 13:55:00 dovidhalevi avahi-daemon[2863]: Leaving mDNS multicast group > on interface eth0.IPv4 with address 10.100.101.100. > Jan 28 13:55:00 dovidhalevi avahi-daemon[2863]: Interface

Re: eth0 is up eventhough the interface is not used

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 07:02:24AM +0800, Umarzuki Mochlis wrote: > # ifconfig > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1e:ec:b1:5a:76 > UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 The "UP" flag listed is just the admin status. However, it's missing the "RUNNING" flag, which will indic

Re: eth0 and networkmanager

Hi, On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 05:35:02PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:27:26 -0700 > Arthur Barlow wrote: > > > I understand that NetworkManager was designed as a tool for the > > woeful state of wireless connections and linux, but I'm using a > > I don't think that the state of

Re: eth0 and networkmanager

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:27:26 -0700 Arthur Barlow wrote: > I understand that NetworkManager was designed as a tool for the > woeful state of wireless connections and linux, but I'm using a I don't think that the state of wireless in linux is all that woeful, and to the extent that it is, the prob

  1   2   3   4   >