On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Allan Jude wrote:
> On 2014-02-13 13:59, Preston Hagar wrote:
> > I have a server setup with FreeBSD-10.0-RELEASE. It has 3 Intel gigabit
> > network cards in it, em0, em1, and em2. I have multiple ezjails setup
> that
> > run various
On 2014-02-13 13:59, Preston Hagar wrote:
> I have a server setup with FreeBSD-10.0-RELEASE. It has 3 Intel gigabit
> network cards in it, em0, em1, and em2. I have multiple ezjails setup that
> run various things.
>
> One jail, called db, runs a postgresql database. It was
I have a server setup with FreeBSD-10.0-RELEASE. It has 3 Intel gigabit
network cards in it, em0, em1, and em2. I have multiple ezjails setup that
run various things.
One jail, called db, runs a postgresql database. It was my intention to
give it em0 all to itself. The other jails and host
On Sun, 17 Oct 1999, Andreas Klemm wrote:
> See ed0
> When running a current kernel of some days ago, no problems.
> Were there perhaps changes in the last days that introduce
> this, that some NICs doesn't run ?
> Even the xl0 interface didn't run (DMZ). Ping to hosts in
> internet didn't su
See ed0
When running a current kernel of some days ago, no problems.
Were there perhaps changes in the last days that introduce
this, that some NICs doesn't run ?
Even the xl0 interface didn't run (DMZ). Ping to hosts in
internet didn't succeed.
Copyright (c) 1992-1999 The FreeBSD Project.
On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 06:01:52AM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote:
> >Suppose you have "xl" and "vr" in your computer. They are named eth0
> >and eth1, respectively. You then replace your "vr" by a "ed". Mark
> But then if I added another say ed0, it wouldn't get eth2 :)
> But yeah, I understand where y
> On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> > Rod Taylor wrote:
> > > I've often wondered this, but why is it that every network card has a
> > > different
> > > 'name'.
> > > xl0, rl0, vr0, ed0, etc. etc. etc
> > The best solution would be hardwiring the names, but in that case it
> > doesn't
> Rod Taylor wrote:
> >
> > I've often wondered this, but why is it that every network card has a
> > different
> > 'name'.
> >
> > xl0, rl0, vr0, ed0, etc. etc. etc
> >
> > I tried simlinking them to a common name (I have xl0, rl0, and ed0 active
> > in my
> > current machine). linked to et
On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> Rod Taylor wrote:
> > I've often wondered this, but why is it that every network card has a
> > different
> > 'name'.
> > xl0, rl0, vr0, ed0, etc. etc. etc
> The best solution would be hardwiring the names, but in that case it
> doesn't matter what are
But then if I added another say ed0, it wouldn't get eth2 :)
But yeah, I understand where you're going...
>> However, it would be nice if they all had a common name to the end user..
>> Primarily, me.. Especially when you rip out one card, install another, then
>> the name changes on you...
>
>
Rod Taylor wrote:
>
> I've often wondered this, but why is it that every network card has a
> different
> 'name'.
>
> xl0, rl0, vr0, ed0, etc. etc. etc
>
> I tried simlinking them to a common name (I have xl0, rl0, and ed0 active in
> my
> current machine). linked to eth0, eth1, eth2 (didn't
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Rod Taylor wrote:
> I've often wondered this, but why is it that every network card has a
> different
> 'name'.
>
> xl0, rl0, vr0, ed0, etc. etc. etc
>
> I tried simlinking them to a common name (I have xl0, rl0, and ed0 active in
> my
> current machine). linked to eth0,
I've often wondered this, but why is it that every network card has a different
'name'.
xl0, rl0, vr0, ed0, etc. etc. etc
I tried simlinking them to a common name (I have xl0, rl0, and ed0 active in my
current machine). linked to eth0, eth1, eth2 (didn't work).
However, it would be nice if the
13 matches
Mail list logo
