On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 6:36 AM, Sean Dilda <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/14/10 12:40 PM, Matt Domsch wrote: > > Fair enough - but if this is just name bikeshedding, then you are > > welcome to write udev rules to name them however you like. The > > process of finding and naming them remains the same. > > A large number of people in the industry see 'LOM' and think 'Lights Out > Management'. As such, I think calling them lomX is very misleading. > When I first saw this thread, I thought you were talking about naming > DRAC ethernet interfaces due to that acronym collision. >
It wasn't until I read this post that I even realized we were talking about LOM meaning something other than "Lights Out Management." I assumed (there's that word) that it was only for those servers which don't have a DRAC with a separate interface, and use the first NIC as a combination production network and IPMI interface. Matt, I don't believe we are bikeshedding here. There are legitimate concerns around calling network interfaces anything that doesn't match /eth\d*/. There are even more legitimate concerns around the collision with the "LOM" acronym. If you want to have consistent naming, please have the scripts always name the first onboard interface "eth0" and name the second "eth1." Picking any other name will lead to confusion, extra work, and ticked off customers calling support because their servers stopped working after an upgrade. -Zach
_______________________________________________ Linux-PowerEdge mailing list [email protected] https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-poweredge Please read the FAQ at http://lists.us.dell.com/faq
