Am 21.10.2012 10:57, schrieb JD:
>> What release are you running? I don't match this to fc16, fc17, or rhel6.
>> You must have a pretty old release,
>> because you mentioned old style output from ifconfig, no colon after the
>> device name.
>>
> Bill I am still on FC16.
> I tried to use the F17
On 10/28/2012 04:08 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 21.10.2012 10:57, schrieb JD:
What release are you running? I don't match this to fc16, fc17, or rhel6. You
must have a pretty old release,
because you mentioned old style output from ifconfig, no colon after the device
name.
Bill I am still
On 10/23/2012 04:10 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
JD wrote:
On 10/17/2012 02:15 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 14:01:25 -0600,
JD wrote:
So, does anyone have any other suggestion how to
prevent udevd from renaming eth0 to em1?
Do you have 71-biosdevname.rules in either /
On 10/23/2012 6:52 PM, Digimer wrote:
Yes, you need a corresponding 'ifcfg-' file to match the udev.d's
NAME="" value. Do not use the ifcfg-'s 'HWADDR="..."' though.
I started using the NAME parameter in Fedora 16. ifcfg-lan:
NAME="lan"
TYPE=Ethernet
ONBOOT="yes"
UUID="331f16e6-ee78-40a6-b06
On 10/23/2012 06:20 PM, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Digimer wrote:
>> On 10/17/2012 09:18 PM, Digimer wrote:
>>> On 10/17/2012 06:24 PM, JD wrote:
Briefly
$ ifconfig -a
em1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr xx:xx:...etc
loLink encap:Local Loopback
virbr0
Digimer wrote:
On 10/17/2012 09:18 PM, Digimer wrote:
On 10/17/2012 06:24 PM, JD wrote:
Briefly
$ ifconfig -a
em1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr xx:xx:...etc
loLink encap:Local Loopback
virbr0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr xx:xx:...etc
virbr0-nic Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr x
JD wrote:
On 10/17/2012 02:15 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 14:01:25 -0600,
JD wrote:
So, does anyone have any other suggestion how to
prevent udevd from renaming eth0 to em1?
Do you have 71-biosdevname.rules in either /etc/udev/rules.d or
/usr/lib/udev/rules.d ? I e
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:56:51PM -0600, JD wrote:
What a useless package that does not solve anything, but creates new
problems for everyone.
That's really not the case. It may not solve anything for *you*, but it does
address a real problem. Maybe not perfectly, but w
Digimer wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/22/2012 12:15 AM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
On Sun, 2012-10-21 at 23:02 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 13:43:17 -0400, "Michael H. Warfield"
wrote:
Now that being said, there's still some notable diff
Michael H. Warfield wrote:
On Sun, 2012-10-21 at 15:24 +1030, Tim wrote:
On Sat, 2012-10-20 at 22:41 -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
Following his instructions, I ended up with this:
SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",
ATTR{address}=="00:19:b9:13:a8:fc", NAME="eth0"
Finding it
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:56:08PM +0300, sirdeiu wrote:
installed from netinstall.iso - KDE desktop. After installation, my
NIC's were named with p35pX. So I've just edited
/lib/udev/rules.d/71-biosdevname.rules and uncommented the line
GOTO="netdevicename_end", saved and
on machines without "biosdevname" installed thsese crap
simply does not exist (or better: should not) and IF it
exists this is a bug!
[root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ stat /lib/udev/rules.d/71-biosdevname.rules
stat: cannot stat `/lib/udev/rules.d/71-biosdevname.rules': No such file or
directory
Installed:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 10:56:08PM +0300, sirdeiu wrote:
> installed from netinstall.iso - KDE desktop. After installation, my
> NIC's were named with p35pX. So I've just edited
> /lib/udev/rules.d/71-biosdevname.rules and uncommented the line
> GOTO="netdevicename_end", saved and rebooted. And got
Hi guys,
On another note, I'm now in Fedora 18 Beta TC6 - Just
installed from netinstall.iso - KDE desktop. After installation, my
NIC's were named with p35pX. So I've just edited
/lib/udev/rules.d/71-biosdevname.rules and uncommented the line
GOTO="netdevicename_end", saved and rebooted. And
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/22/2012 12:15 AM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-10-21 at 23:02 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 13:43:17 -0400, "Michael H. Warfield"
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Now that being said, there's still some notable differen
On Sun, 2012-10-21 at 23:02 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 13:43:17 -0400,
>"Michael H. Warfield" wrote:
> >
> >Now that being said, there's still some notable differences. Most of my
> >machines (some F16 and some F17, some i686 and some x86_64) came up with
> >p2p1
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 13:43:17 -0400,
"Michael H. Warfield" wrote:
Now that being said, there's still some notable differences. Most of my
machines (some F16 and some F17, some i686 and some x86_64) came up with
p2p1 for interface names and his is coming up em1. Obviously something
em1
On Sat, 2012-10-20 at 21:01 -0600, JD wrote:
> On 10/20/2012 08:41 PM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 10:05 -0600, JD wrote:
> >> On 10/18/2012 09:16 AM, Tim wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 08:11 -0600, JD wrote:
> I assure you the MAC does match the MAC of the Etherne
On Sun, 2012-10-21 at 15:24 +1030, Tim wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-10-20 at 22:41 -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> > Following his instructions, I ended up with this:
> >
> > SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",
> > ATTR{address}=="00:19:b9:13:a8:fc", NAME="eth0"
> Finding it hard to reme
On Sat, 2012-10-20 at 22:41 -0400, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
> Following his instructions, I ended up with this:
>
> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*",
> ATTR{address}=="00:19:b9:13:a8:fc", NAME="eth0"
Finding it hard to remember the plot, but is that rule set for matching
something
A while back, I ran into a problem trying to rename interface names
(details of which I no longer remember). The solution at the time was to
create an empty '/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules', then to
make it immutable (chattr -i /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules),
then finally to
On 10/20/2012 08:41 PM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 10:05 -0600, JD wrote:
On 10/18/2012 09:16 AM, Tim wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 08:11 -0600, JD wrote:
I assure you the MAC does match the MAC of the Ethernet chipset.
Looking at the quotes:..
I meant taking out some ot
On 10/20/2012 08:41 PM, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 10:05 -0600, JD wrote:
Made the change and rebooted.
Sorry - it does not deter udev from screwing up!
$ dmesg | grep em1
[6.033303] udevd[218]: renamed network interface eth0 to em1
$ cat /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persi
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 10:05 -0600, JD wrote:
> On 10/18/2012 09:16 AM, Tim wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 08:11 -0600, JD wrote:
> >> I assure you the MAC does match the MAC of the Ethernet chipset.
> >> Looking at the quotes:..
> > I meant taking out some other rules which mightn't match, so you
On 10/18/2012 09:16 AM, Tim wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 08:11 -0600, JD wrote:
I assure you the MAC does match the MAC of the Ethernet chipset.
Looking at the quotes:..
I meant taking out some other rules which mightn't match, so you *only*
trying to match the MAC, not the MAC *and* this *and
On Thu, 2012-10-18 at 08:11 -0600, JD wrote:
> I assure you the MAC does match the MAC of the Ethernet chipset.
> Looking at the quotes:..
I meant taking out some other rules which mightn't match, so you *only*
trying to match the MAC, not the MAC *and* this *and* that.
> All entries have exactl
On 10/18/2012 02:41 AM, Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 19:49 -0600, JD wrote:
I did do just that, as also vehemently stated by many other bloggers I
read on other web sites. Unfortunately, IT DOES NOT WORK!! Here is
what I have in /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
SUBSYSTEM=="net",
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 19:49 -0600, JD wrote:
> I did do just that, as also vehemently stated by many other bloggers I
> read on other web sites. Unfortunately, IT DOES NOT WORK!! Here is
> what I have in /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
>
> SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*"
On 10/17/2012 07:22 PM, Digimer wrote:
On 10/17/2012 09:18 PM, Digimer wrote:
On 10/17/2012 06:24 PM, JD wrote:
Briefly
$ ifconfig -a
em1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr xx:xx:...etc
loLink encap:Local Loopback
virbr0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr xx:xx:...etc
virbr0-nic Link
On 10/17/2012 09:18 PM, Digimer wrote:
> On 10/17/2012 06:24 PM, JD wrote:
>> Briefly
>> $ ifconfig -a
>> em1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr xx:xx:...etc
>>
>> loLink encap:Local Loopback
>>
>> virbr0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr xx:xx:...etc
>>
>> virbr0-nic Link encap:Ethernet H
On 10/17/2012 06:24 PM, JD wrote:
> Briefly
> $ ifconfig -a
> em1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr xx:xx:...etc
>
> loLink encap:Local Loopback
>
> virbr0Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr xx:xx:...etc
>
> virbr0-nic Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr xx:xx:...etc
>
> wlan0 Link encap:Et
On 10/17/2012 03:59 PM, Digimer wrote:
On 10/17/2012 05:44 PM, JD wrote:
On 10/17/2012 02:38 PM, Digimer wrote:
On 10/17/2012 04:01 PM, JD wrote:
On 10/16/2012 05:05 PM, JD wrote:
On 10/16/2012 02:27 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 16.10.2012 04:58, schrieb JD:
I googled this and came across 2
On 10/17/2012 02:15 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 14:01:25 -0600,
JD wrote:
So, does anyone have any other suggestion how to
prevent udevd from renaming eth0 to em1?
Do you have 71-biosdevname.rules in either /etc/udev/rules.d or
/usr/lib/udev/rules.d ? I expect that
On 10/17/2012 02:15 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 14:01:25 -0600,
JD wrote:
So, does anyone have any other suggestion how to
prevent udevd from renaming eth0 to em1?
Do you have 71-biosdevname.rules in either /etc/udev/rules.d or
/usr/lib/udev/rules.d ? I expect that
On 10/17/2012 02:15 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 14:01:25 -0600,
JD wrote:
So, does anyone have any other suggestion how to
prevent udevd from renaming eth0 to em1?
Do you have 71-biosdevname.rules in either /etc/udev/rules.d or
/usr/lib/udev/rules.d ? I expect that
On 10/17/2012 04:01 PM, JD wrote:
>
> On 10/16/2012 05:05 PM, JD wrote:
>>
>> On 10/16/2012 02:27 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 16.10.2012 04:58, schrieb JD:
I googled this and came across 2 purported
solutions, neither of which worked.
1. Uninstall package biosdevname and reb
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 14:01:25 -0600,
JD wrote:
So, does anyone have any other suggestion how to
prevent udevd from renaming eth0 to em1?
Do you have 71-biosdevname.rules in either /etc/udev/rules.d or
/usr/lib/udev/rules.d ? I expect that would run after the persistant
name rule and re
On 10/16/2012 05:05 PM, JD wrote:
On 10/16/2012 02:27 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 16.10.2012 04:58, schrieb JD:
I googled this and came across 2 purported
solutions, neither of which worked.
1. Uninstall package biosdevname and reboot.
That did not prevent udevd from renaming eth0 to em1.
On 10/16/2012 02:27 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 16.10.2012 04:58, schrieb JD:
I googled this and came across 2 purported
solutions, neither of which worked.
1. Uninstall package biosdevname and reboot.
That did not prevent udevd from renaming eth0 to em1.
2. Add the line
biosdevname=0
to /bo
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 01:56:51PM -0600, JD wrote:
> What a useless package that does not solve anything, but creates new
> problems for everyone.
That's really not the case. It may not solve anything for *you*, but it does
address a real problem. Maybe not perfectly, but we can fix the bugs.
On 10/16/2012 01:17 PM, sirdeiu wrote:
I just edited 71-biosdevname.rules in /lib/udev/rules.d, where line 15
contains:
*GOTO="netdevicename_end"*
Basically just uncomment it like the instruction above it said.
Then all my NIC's are named ethX. Also name them accordingly in your
/etc/sysc
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 14:18:54 -0400
Matthew Miller wrote:
> We backported biosdevname
> from Fedora into CentOS and solved our problem.
Just don't backport any biosdevname updates or the
"immutable" names will change :-).
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or chang
On 10/16/2012 2:16 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 10/16/2012 11:13 AM, Bill Shirley wrote:
PS. See how cool I am? I said boxen and interwebz. :-)
Well, you were right up to the point where you pointed it out. Sorry,
but you're still just a PFY.
But..., but..., I use da cloud and program Web 2.0!
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 02:13:21PM -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
> I tried the new names on three servers and didn't like it. On one
On the other side: at my last job, we had a number of servers with multiple
network cards, with a mix of Broadcom and Intel. It was very frustrating to
get systems con
On 10/16/2012 11:13 AM, Bill Shirley wrote:
PS. See how cool I am? I said boxen and interwebz. :-)
Well, you were right up to the point where you pointed it out. Sorry,
but you're still just a PFY.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription o
On 10/16/2012 4:27 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 16.10.2012 04:58, schrieb JD:
I googled this and came across 2 purported
solutions, neither of which worked.
1. Uninstall package biosdevname and reboot.
That did not prevent udevd from renaming eth0 to em1.
2. Add the line
biosdevname=0
to /boo
Am 16.10.2012 04:58, schrieb JD:
> I googled this and came across 2 purported
> solutions, neither of which worked.
> 1. Uninstall package biosdevname and reboot.
>
> That did not prevent udevd from renaming eth0 to em1.
>
> 2. Add the line
> biosdevname=0
> to /boot/grub2/grub.cfg
>
> That di
I googled this and came across 2 purported
solutions, neither of which worked.
1. Uninstall package biosdevname and reboot.
That did not prevent udevd from renaming eth0 to em1.
2. Add the line
biosdevname=0
to /boot/grub2/grub.cfg
That did not work either.
Any other way to get around this ren
48 matches
Mail list logo
