Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev
On 9 April 2013, at 19:56, Walter Dnes wrote: On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 06:02:38AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote Personally, I didn't know people still used LILO (no flame intended, I just didn't realize it was still alive and kicking), but then gentoo was my first real experience with linux... It works; i.e. it loads the OS, with a minimum of fuss. What more can anyone ask for? This must be a terribly ancient discussion, in which all the pros and cons have already been aired. I trust I don't reignite anything with this statement, but… I find it rather inelegant to have to run a command to update lilo, after editing a text file. If my configuration is to be stored in a textfile - which makes a lot of sense - I find it preferable my bootloader should be able to read that text file. Of course this makes the bootloader unnecessarily complicated, so I guess it's a matter of taste - that's how I'm inclined to feel about GRUB2. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 09:12:15AM +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
Steady on, old chap! By it I was meaning the general inconvenience
all round occasioned by the changes between udev-{197,200}. Not
everybody encountered this. For example Dale, and Walt D. didn't have
to do anything. But pretty much everybody else did.
I didnt get hit either either, but (STRONG hint) ... I use eudev, so
dies Dale and I believe Walt uses mdev. Time for those in server
environments to jump ship?
It may hit us eventually, but at the moment its :)
I didn't get hit by this either, and am still using udev. I went from 171 to
197 to 200 and all's still well on the 5 Gentoo boxen left on this LAN.
Granted, only 3 of them have multiple NICs, and only one is using multiple
ethernet cables atm.
--
Happy Penguin Computers ')
126 Fenco Drive ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^
supp...@happypenguincomputers.com
662-269-2706 662-205-6424
http://happypenguincomputers.com/
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 10:35:28PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote: AFAICT, on-board NICs have sequential MAC Adresses, with the one labeled Port 1 has the smallest MAC Address. So far, *all* Linux distros I've used on a server will reliably name Port X as eth$((X-1)). So it's never a puzzle as to which port bears which ethX moniker. My SuperMicro has the lower MAC wired to ID1 and the higher MAC to ID2: [ 11.691830] tg3 :03:00.0: eth0: Tigon3 [partno(BCM95721) rev 4101] (PCI Express) MAC address 00:d0:68:0b:87:67 [ 11.691985] tg3 :03:00.0: eth0: attached PHY is 5750 (10/100/1000Base-T Ethernet) (WireSpeed[1], EEE[0]) [ 11.692192] tg3 :03:00.0: eth0: RXcsums[1] LinkChgREG[0] MIirq[0] ASF[1] TSOcap[1] [ 11.692340] tg3 :03:00.0: eth0: dma_rwctrl[7618] dma_mask[64-bit] [ 11.699283] tg3 :02:00.0: eth1: Tigon3 [partno(BCM95721) rev 4101] (PCI Express) MAC address 00:d0:68:0b:87:66 [ 11.699439] tg3 :02:00.0: eth1: attached PHY is 5750 (10/100/1000Base-T Ethernet) (WireSpeed[1], EEE[0]) [ 11.699591] tg3 :02:00.0: eth1: RXcsums[1] LinkChgREG[0] MIirq[0] ASF[0] TSOcap[1] [ 11.699738] tg3 :02:00.0: eth1: dma_rwctrl[7618] dma_mask[64-bit] Which is precisely the reason for me using 70-persistent-net.rules since Gentoo was installed on it back in 2011. My ethernet cable is plugged into ID1, or MAC address 00:d0:68:0b:87:66, and /etc/conf.d/net must know which eth* that was assigned. The new naming scheme, however, is much less intuitive. Where originally I just immediately use eth0, now I have to enumerate the monikers first, because even between servers of the same model (let's say, HP's DL360 G7), the PCI attachment point might differ. My old brain has chosen to stick with intuitive, which really just means what you have become accustomed to, whatever that might be individually. Granted, Linux SysAdmins *are* expected to understand the vagaries of Linux, but it's still a great inconvenience. And therein lies the rub ... systemd has overtaken udev and changed the nomenclature. -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev
On 04/08/13 04:36, Stroller wrote: The new naming scheme, however, is much less intuitive. Where originally I just immediately use eth0, now I have to enumerate the monikers first, because even between servers of the same model (let's say, HP's DL360 G7), the PCI attachment point might differ. I agree. However, attempts to solve this in kernel (I think *several* of them), which would have allowed the eth0, ethX namespaces to be retained, were rejected. See [3]. I believe that HP shared involvement in this - I think they collaborated with Dell on how the BIOS would declare the NICs in a way that would be available to the kernel. Stroller. Well, if HP had an involvement in it, I'm not surprised we got screw-up with this naming; sarcasm. If they could only put/assign a chip/serial number and ask us to pay the way they do with their printer cartridges they would do it :-/ If the boys with the servers, with more than two networks cards wants to have consistent naming they should have made it optional and not push this new name crap on everybody. -- Joseph
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 12:12:30 -0600, Joseph wrote: If the boys with the servers, with more than two networks cards wants to have consistent naming they should have made it optional and not push this new name crap on everybody. It is optional - RTFN! -- Neil Bothwick Suicide is the most sincere form of self-criticism. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev
On 7 April 2013, at 07:00, Joseph wrote: ... Are these new udev rules going across all Linux distros or this is something specific to Gentoo? I would assume across all distros. Gentoo generally makes a policy of just packaging whatever upstream offers. In fact, the origins of the ebuild is that it does little more than automating the `configure make make install` of compiling upsteam's source. I don't see why the Gentoo devs would impose this on us, unless it came from upstream. AIUI the motive for these changes are so that you can unpack an enterprise-type server, the ones with two NICs on the motherboard, and always know which NIC is which. You can then unpack a pallet load of them, and deploy them without any need for determining which is which or for any manual intervention. This is actually pretty important and useful, but I'm not sure this has all been done the best way. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 09:12:15 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote: I didnt get hit either either, but (STRONG hint) ... I use eudev, so dies Dale and I believe Walt uses mdev. Time for those in server environments to jump ship? Except the problems that udev is trying to avoid are more likely to be exerienced in server environments. Those running a desktop with a single network card are never going to be bothered about namespace clashes. -- Neil Bothwick Famed tautologist dies of suicide in distressing tragedy signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty, nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE, Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means no UNcommented lines. Comments are just that, and if there are no UNcommented lines, then nothing is active, hence it is effectively 'empty'. But not actually empty. If you are correct, and I suspect you are, then the news item is poorly worded. No effective content is not the same as no content at all. -- Neil Bothwick ... Never say anything more predictive than Watch this! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev
On Apr 7, 2013 3:56 PM, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote: On 7 April 2013, at 07:00, Joseph wrote: ... Are these new udev rules going across all Linux distros or this is something specific to Gentoo? I would assume across all distros. Gentoo generally makes a policy of just packaging whatever upstream offers. In fact, the origins of the ebuild is that it does little more than automating the `configure make make install` of compiling upsteam's source. I don't see why the Gentoo devs would impose this on us, unless it came from upstream. AIUI the motive for these changes are so that you can unpack an enterprise-type server, the ones with two NICs on the motherboard, and always know which NIC is which. You can then unpack a pallet load of them, and deploy them without any need for determining which is which or for any manual intervention. This is actually pretty important and useful, but I'm not sure this has all been done the best way. Stroller. AFAICT, on-board NICs have sequential MAC Adresses, with the one labeled Port 1 has the smallest MAC Address. So far, *all* Linux distros I've used on a server will reliably name Port X as eth$((X-1)). So it's never a puzzle as to which port bears which ethX moniker. The new naming scheme, however, is much less intuitive. Where originally I just immediately use eth0, now I have to enumerate the monikers first, because even between servers of the same model (let's say, HP's DL360 G7), the PCI attachment point might differ. Granted, Linux SysAdmins *are* expected to understand the vagaries of Linux, but it's still a great inconvenience. Rgds, --
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty, nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE, Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means no UNcommented lines. Comments are just that, and if there are no UNcommented lines, then nothing is active, hence it is effectively 'empty'. But not actually empty. If you are correct, and I suspect you are, then the news item is poorly worded. No effective content is not the same as no content at all. Oh, I agree that it was poorly worded, I was just pointing out that it was kind of silly to take quite it so literally... Every sysadmin knows (or should know) that a config file full of nothing but comments isn't going to do *anything* other than provide whatever defaults the program is designed to use in such a case.
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 07-Apr-13 18:03, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty, nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE, Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means no UNcommented lines. Comments are just that, and if there are no UNcommented lines, then nothing is active, hence it is effectively 'empty'. But not actually empty. If you are correct, and I suspect you are, then the news item is poorly worded. No effective content is not the same as no content at all. Oh, I agree that it was poorly worded, I was just pointing out that it was kind of silly to take quite it so literally... Every sysadmin knows (or should know) that a config file full of nothing but comments isn't going to do *anything* other than provide whatever defaults the program is designed to use in such a case. True, but only if admin checks content of the file. The lazy one (me) just checked size (ls -l /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules), found it is not linked to /dev/null and the file size is 1667 bytes, and satisfied that he checked all what was in news-item rebooted... Devs should not over-estimate users. Or I put it other way: every news-item should be fool-proof (if it is possible)... Jarry -- ___ This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists! Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev
On 04/07/13 22:35, Pandu Poluan wrote: [snip] AFAICT, on-board NICs have sequential MAC Adresses, with the one labeled Port 1 has the smallest MAC Address. So far, *all* Linux distros I've used on a server will reliably name Port X as eth$((X-1)). So it's never a puzzle as to which port bears which ethX moniker. The new naming scheme, however, is much less intuitive. Where originally I just immediately use eth0, now I have to enumerate the monikers first, because even between servers of the same model (let's say, HP's DL360 G7), the PCI attachment point might differ. Granted, Linux SysAdmins *are* expected to understand the vagaries of Linux, but it's still a great inconvenience. Rgds, -- In my opinion this new udev-200 naming port is a big screw-up; I wouldn't be surprised if few months down the road we will go back to old naming because of misunderstandings. -- Joseph
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 2013-04-07 12:18 PM, Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote: On 07-Apr-13 18:03, Tanstaafl wrote: Every sysadmin knows (or should know) that a config file full of nothing but comments isn't going to do *anything* other than provide whatever defaults the program is designed to use in such a case. True, but only if admin checks content of the file. The lazy one (me) just checked size (ls -l /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules), found it is not linked to /dev/null and the file size is 1667 bytes, and satisfied that he checked all what was in news-item rebooted... Devs should not over-estimate users. Or I put it other way: every news-item should be fool-proof (if it is possible)... Or put another way, lazy devs should simply admit that they run the risk of making silly mistakes like this because of their laziness. Failure to check the actual contents of a file critical to system operation (whether booting or network) when it is specifically mentioned in release notes (or a news item) is just asking for precisely these kinds of problems. I'm sympathetic with Nick, but I don't feel sorry for him, he did this to himself. Hell, I'm *still* analyzing things before pulling the trigger, and I'm 100% certain that I've got a handle on what to do now (after lots of reading and asking questions here)...
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 12:03:21 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: But not actually empty. If you are correct, and I suspect you are, then the news item is poorly worded. No effective content is not the same as no content at all. Oh, I agree that it was poorly worded, I was just pointing out that it was kind of silly to take quite it so literally... These are computers we are dealing with, literally interpretation is the norm. If the news item meant devoid of actionable content, that is what it should have said. Every sysadmin knows (or should know) that a config file full of nothing but comments isn't going to do *anything* other than provide whatever defaults the program is designed to use in such a case. You do realise that you have just described the file as full so it cannot be considered empty :) -- Neil Bothwick Last words of a Windows user: = Why does that work now? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Apr 7, 2013 8:13 AM, William Kenworthy bi...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On 07/04/13 01:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
'Evening, Alan.
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 06:36:07PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 06/04/2013 17:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and
typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to
IP6? These are our DB servers and why me!!! Why ME!
No, it's not just you, it's happened to pretty much everybody.
udev-200
now renames eth0, eth1,
Please please PLEASE, for the love of god joseph mary and every other
$DEITY on the planet
STOP SPREADING THIS FUD
It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people who
blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news
announcement, who did not read the CLEARLY WORDED wiki article at
freedesktop.org or alternatively went into mod-induced panic and
started
making shit up in their heads.
Steady on, old chap! By it I was meaning the general inconvenience
all round occasioned by the changes between udev-{197,200}. Not
everybody encountered this. For example Dale, and Walt D. didn't have
to do anything. But pretty much everybody else did.
I didnt get hit either either, but (STRONG hint) ... I use eudev, so
dies Dale and I believe Walt uses mdev. Time for those in server
environments to jump ship?
It may hit us eventually, but at the moment its :)
BillK
Well, *my* Gentoo servers are already running mdev...
Hmm... doesn't anyone think it's weird that we haven't heard any complaints
/ horror stories from the Gentoo-server mailing list?
Rgds,
--
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev
On 7 April 2013, at 16:35, Pandu Poluan wrote: On Apr 7, 2013 3:56 PM, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote: AIUI the motive for these changes are so that you can unpack an enterprise-type server, the ones with two NICs on the motherboard, and always know which NIC is which. You can then unpack a pallet load of them, and deploy them without any need for determining which is which or for any manual intervention. This is actually pretty important and useful, but I'm not sure this has all been done the best way. AFAICT, on-board NICs have sequential MAC Adresses, with the one labeled Port 1 has the smallest MAC Address. So far, *all* Linux distros I've used on a server will reliably name Port X as eth$((X-1)). So it's never a puzzle as to which port bears which ethX moniker. I would expect this to be the case, too, but I'm told it's not always so - you cannot be certain of it. I think that the kernel allocates interfaces to NICs in the order in which they're found - eth0 to the first one, eth1 to the second, and so on. A pair of on-board NICs may be allocated interface IDs in the same order as their MACs, but they may not be - especially if, for some reason, one responds abnormally slowly to probing from the kernel. A really good long discussion of this is available at [1], see also [2]: Without biosdevname, you get all ethX names - they're just in completely non-deterministic order. Often times after the first non-deterministic order is set in 70-persistent-net.names, and with no other configuration changes to your system, on reboot you'll get those same names for those devices again, but only because no renames are actually taking place - the kernel accidentally names them in the same way each time. You cannot swizzle them within the ethX namespace and have it work - it's racy and failure-prone. You must change out of ethX in order to get consistency at all. The new naming scheme, however, is much less intuitive. Where originally I just immediately use eth0, now I have to enumerate the monikers first, because even between servers of the same model (let's say, HP's DL360 G7), the PCI attachment point might differ. I agree. However, attempts to solve this in kernel (I think *several* of them), which would have allowed the eth0, ethX namespaces to be retained, were rejected. See [3]. I believe that HP shared involvement in this - I think they collaborated with Dell on how the BIOS would declare the NICs in a way that would be available to the kernel. Stroller. [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdevm=128163454631618w=3 [2] http://lists.us.dell.com/pipermail/linux-poweredge/2010-November/043586.html [3] http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdevm=128518030400371w=3
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 10:30:10AM -0600, Joseph wrote In my opinion this new udev-200 naming port is a big screw-up; I wouldn't be surprised if few months down the road we will go back to old naming because of misunderstandings. Some time ago, after udevd was subsumed into the systemd tarball, firmware loading was screwed up by the udev/systemd team. They insisted that the old way was wrong, and only their new and improved method of loading firmware was to be used. Here we go again. How long before they create more problems? -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Hi, Nick. On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:51:42AM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: After updating our systems we lost network connectivity to the servers. When trying to start net.eth0 we got the following message: /ib64/rc/net/wpa_supplicant.sh: line 68: _is wireless command not found /etc/init.d/net.eth0: line 548: _exists command not found Errror: Interface eth0 does not exist Ensure that you have loaded the correct kernel modules for your hardware # lsmod module used by tg3 0 lbphytg3 eth0 flags=4098broadcast,multicast mtu 1500 interrupt=16 lo flags=73UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING mtu 16436 inet 127.0.0.1 BROADCAST 255.255.255.0 inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 scopeid 0x10 host Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to IP6? These are our DB servers and why me!!! Why ME! No, it's not just you, it's happened to pretty much everybody. udev-200 now renames eth0, eth1, to something else, dependent upon complicated rules. In my case eth0 has become p6p1, though many people seem to have got longer names. Have a look in /sys/class/net and see if your new name is there. If so, edit all your config files containing eth0, switching to the new name. Once you got that done and things work again, take a deep breath and have a look at the most recent Gentoo news item ($ eselect news read) which explains it all, more or less. Then decide whether the above is a long term solution, and if not start reading docs about writing udev rules. Yes, it's a pain in the backside. But at least with Gentoo, you've a good chance of fixing things like this quickly. Your help is greatly appreciated, Nick -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 06/04/2013 17:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote: Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to IP6? These are our DB servers and why me!!! Why ME! No, it's not just you, it's happened to pretty much everybody. udev-200 now renames eth0, eth1, Please please PLEASE, for the love of god joseph mary and every other $DEITY on the planet STOP SPREADING THIS FUD It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people who blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news announcement, who did not read the CLEARLY WORDED wiki article at freedesktop.org or alternatively went into mod-induced panic and started making shit up in their heads. @Nick: all you have to do is run eselect news and read what is there. It is all very clearly worded and makes complete sense when read in conjunction with the wiki page (link is in the news statement). Unless you have a very complex setup with multiple NICs (and especially if they are USB based) you will find that the docs probably cover your case completely (just add common sense and a bit of understanding about what udev does on a Linux system). All that happened is that the thing you used to know as eth0 now has a different name. The most important thing you need to remember is you cannot safely rename that NIC to ethX as this can collide with what the kernel drivers are trying to do. And that is all that happened here. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
'Evening, Alan.
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 06:36:07PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 06/04/2013 17:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and
typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to
IP6? These are our DB servers and why me!!! Why ME!
No, it's not just you, it's happened to pretty much everybody. udev-200
now renames eth0, eth1,
Please please PLEASE, for the love of god joseph mary and every other
$DEITY on the planet
STOP SPREADING THIS FUD
It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people who
blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news
announcement, who did not read the CLEARLY WORDED wiki article at
freedesktop.org or alternatively went into mod-induced panic and started
making shit up in their heads.
Steady on, old chap! By it I was meaning the general inconvenience
all round occasioned by the changes between udev-{197,200}. Not
everybody encountered this. For example Dale, and Walt D. didn't have
to do anything. But pretty much everybody else did.
I was just trying to help Nick get his servers back up asap. I should
imagine having down servers is even more nerve wracking than down
desktops. (Down pillows are OK, though ;-).
I've now got p6p1 instead of eth0. It's irritating, but not irritating
enough for me to be bothered to do anything about it.
--
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 06-Apr-13 19:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
STOP SPREADING THIS FUD
It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people who
blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news
announcement, who did not read the CLEARLY WORDED wiki article at
freedesktop.org or alternatively went into mod-induced panic and started
making shit up in their heads.
Steady on, old chap! By it I was meaning the general inconvenience
all round occasioned by the changes between udev-{197,200}. Not
everybody encountered this. For example Dale, and Walt D. didn't have
to do anything. But pretty much everybody else did.
The problem is, news item is not correct! I followed it
and yet finished with server having old network name (eth0).
Problem was the point 4. in news item, which is not quite clear:
-
4. predictable network interface names:
If /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is an empty file
or a symlink to /dev/null, the new names will be disabled and
the kernel will do all the interface naming...
-
Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE,
which basically did the same thing as empty file: disabled
new network names. Unfortunatelly, I found it just after
screwed reboot. But I did everything I found in news item:
checked and verified that file was not symlink to /dev/null
and that it was not empty (1667 bytes does not seem to me
to be empty file).
As I wrote previously, I am pretty sure I never created this
file manually so it must have been created by som previous
udev-version. So I finished up with similar problem as OP:
after rebooting I did not find interface I expected. The
only difference is I expected already interface with new
name, and OP is probably the old one...
So I must add my point to complaining about news item
not beeing quite clear. And this happens quite often...
Jarry
--
___
This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists!
Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Am 06.04.2013 17:57, schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
Hi, Nick.
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:51:42AM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
After updating our systems we lost network connectivity to the
servers. When trying to start net.eth0 we got the following message:
/ib64/rc/net/wpa_supplicant.sh: line 68: _is wireless command not found
/etc/init.d/net.eth0: line 548: _exists command not found
Errror: Interface eth0 does not exist
Ensure that you have loaded the correct kernel modules for your hardware
# lsmod
module used by
tg3 0
lbphytg3
eth0
flags=4098broadcast,multicast mtu 1500
interrupt=16
lo
flags=73UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING mtu 16436
inet 127.0.0.1 BROADCAST 255.255.255.0
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 scopeid 0x10 host
Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and
typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to
IP6? These are our DB servers and why me!!! Why ME!
No, it's not just you, it's happened to pretty much everybody. udev-200
now renames eth0, eth1, to something else, dependent upon
complicated rules. In my case eth0 has become p6p1, though many people
seem to have got longer names.
Have a look in /sys/class/net and see if your new name is there. If so,
edit all your config files containing eth0, switching to the new name.
Once you got that done and things work again, take a deep breath and have
a look at the most recent Gentoo news item ($ eselect news read) which
explains it all, more or less. Then decide whether the above is a long
term solution, and if not start reading docs about writing udev rules.
Yes, it's a pain in the backside. But at least with Gentoo, you've a
good chance of fixing things like this quickly.
Your help is greatly appreciated,
Nick
in my case it is still eth0:
ifconfig
eth0: flags=4163UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST mtu 1500
inet 192.168.178.21 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast
192.168.178.255
inet6 fe80::1e6f:65ff:fe87:6f6a prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20link
ether 1c:6f:65:87:6f:6a txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 4647305 bytes 6693078055 (6.2 GiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 2943816 bytes 226871998 (216.3 MiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 1 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
sys-fs/udev
Available versions: (~)168-r2[1] [M]171-r10 197-r8^t{tbz2}
(~)198-r6^t{tbz2} (~)199-r1^t{tbz2} 200^t{tbz2} **^t {acl
action_modeswitch build debug doc edd extras +firmware-loader floppy
gudev hwdb introspection keymap +kmod +openrc +rule_generator selinux
static-libs test}
Installed versions: 200^t{tbz2}(18:30:31
29.03.2013)(firmware-loader gudev hwdb keymap kmod openrc -acl -doc
-introspection -selinux -static-libs)
I did keep net.eth0
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Saturday 06 Apr 2013 20:03:15 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
Am 06.04.2013 17:57, schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
Hi, Nick.
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:51:42AM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
After updating our systems we lost network connectivity to the
servers. When trying to start net.eth0 we got the following message:
/ib64/rc/net/wpa_supplicant.sh: line 68: _is wireless command not found
/etc/init.d/net.eth0: line 548: _exists command not found
Errror: Interface eth0 does not exist
Ensure that you have loaded the correct kernel modules for your hardware
# lsmod
module used by
tg3 0
lbphytg3
eth0
flags=4098broadcast,multicast mtu 1500
interrupt=16
lo
flags=73UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING mtu 16436
inet 127.0.0.1 BROADCAST 255.255.255.0
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 scopeid 0x10 host
Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and
typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to
IP6? These are our DB servers and why me!!! Why ME!
No, it's not just you, it's happened to pretty much everybody. udev-200
now renames eth0, eth1, to something else, dependent upon
complicated rules. In my case eth0 has become p6p1, though many people
seem to have got longer names.
Have a look in /sys/class/net and see if your new name is there. If so,
edit all your config files containing eth0, switching to the new name.
Once you got that done and things work again, take a deep breath and have
a look at the most recent Gentoo news item ($ eselect news read) which
explains it all, more or less. Then decide whether the above is a long
term solution, and if not start reading docs about writing udev rules.
Yes, it's a pain in the backside. But at least with Gentoo, you've a
good chance of fixing things like this quickly.
Your help is greatly appreciated,
Nick
in my case it is still eth0:
ifconfig
eth0: flags=4163UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST mtu 1500
inet 192.168.178.21 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast
192.168.178.255
inet6 fe80::1e6f:65ff:fe87:6f6a prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20link
ether 1c:6f:65:87:6f:6a txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 4647305 bytes 6693078055 (6.2 GiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 2943816 bytes 226871998 (216.3 MiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 1 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
sys-fs/udev
Available versions: (~)168-r2[1] [M]171-r10 197-r8^t{tbz2}
(~)198-r6^t{tbz2} (~)199-r1^t{tbz2} 200^t{tbz2} **^t {acl
action_modeswitch build debug doc edd extras +firmware-loader floppy
gudev hwdb introspection keymap +kmod +openrc +rule_generator selinux
static-libs test}
Installed versions: 200^t{tbz2}(18:30:31
29.03.2013)(firmware-loader gudev hwdb keymap kmod openrc -acl -doc
-introspection -selinux -static-libs)
I did keep net.eth0
Is your eth0 NIC a module (modprobed), or built in the kernel?
--
Regards,
Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Am 06.04.2013 21:33, schrieb Mick:
On Saturday 06 Apr 2013 20:03:15 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
Am 06.04.2013 17:57, schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
Hi, Nick.
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:51:42AM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
After updating our systems we lost network connectivity to the
servers. When trying to start net.eth0 we got the following message:
/ib64/rc/net/wpa_supplicant.sh: line 68: _is wireless command not found
/etc/init.d/net.eth0: line 548: _exists command not found
Errror: Interface eth0 does not exist
Ensure that you have loaded the correct kernel modules for your hardware
# lsmod
module used by
tg3 0
lbphytg3
eth0
flags=4098broadcast,multicast mtu 1500
interrupt=16
lo
flags=73UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING mtu 16436
inet 127.0.0.1 BROADCAST 255.255.255.0
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 scopeid 0x10 host
Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and
typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to
IP6? These are our DB servers and why me!!! Why ME!
No, it's not just you, it's happened to pretty much everybody. udev-200
now renames eth0, eth1, to something else, dependent upon
complicated rules. In my case eth0 has become p6p1, though many people
seem to have got longer names.
Have a look in /sys/class/net and see if your new name is there. If so,
edit all your config files containing eth0, switching to the new name.
Once you got that done and things work again, take a deep breath and have
a look at the most recent Gentoo news item ($ eselect news read) which
explains it all, more or less. Then decide whether the above is a long
term solution, and if not start reading docs about writing udev rules.
Yes, it's a pain in the backside. But at least with Gentoo, you've a
good chance of fixing things like this quickly.
Your help is greatly appreciated,
Nick
in my case it is still eth0:
ifconfig
eth0: flags=4163UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST mtu 1500
inet 192.168.178.21 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast
192.168.178.255
inet6 fe80::1e6f:65ff:fe87:6f6a prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20link
ether 1c:6f:65:87:6f:6a txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 4647305 bytes 6693078055 (6.2 GiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 2943816 bytes 226871998 (216.3 MiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 1 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
sys-fs/udev
Available versions: (~)168-r2[1] [M]171-r10 197-r8^t{tbz2}
(~)198-r6^t{tbz2} (~)199-r1^t{tbz2} 200^t{tbz2} **^t {acl
action_modeswitch build debug doc edd extras +firmware-loader floppy
gudev hwdb introspection keymap +kmod +openrc +rule_generator selinux
static-libs test}
Installed versions: 200^t{tbz2}(18:30:31
29.03.2013)(firmware-loader gudev hwdb keymap kmod openrc -acl -doc
-introspection -selinux -static-libs)
I did keep net.eth0
Is your eth0 NIC a module (modprobed), or built in the kernel?
r8169 41918 0
module
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 2013-04-06 1:50 PM, Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote: Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty, nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE, Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means no UNcommented lines. Comments are just that, and if there are no UNcommented lines, then nothing is active, hence it is effectively 'empty'.
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 07/04/13 01:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
'Evening, Alan.
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 06:36:07PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 06/04/2013 17:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and
typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to
IP6? These are our DB servers and why me!!! Why ME!
No, it's not just you, it's happened to pretty much everybody. udev-200
now renames eth0, eth1,
Please please PLEASE, for the love of god joseph mary and every other
$DEITY on the planet
STOP SPREADING THIS FUD
It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people who
blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news
announcement, who did not read the CLEARLY WORDED wiki article at
freedesktop.org or alternatively went into mod-induced panic and started
making shit up in their heads.
Steady on, old chap! By it I was meaning the general inconvenience
all round occasioned by the changes between udev-{197,200}. Not
everybody encountered this. For example Dale, and Walt D. didn't have
to do anything. But pretty much everybody else did.
I didnt get hit either either, but (STRONG hint) ... I use eudev, so
dies Dale and I believe Walt uses mdev. Time for those in server
environments to jump ship?
It may hit us eventually, but at the moment its :)
BillK
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
The problem with eudev is that we are using the hardened profile and not sure
if it is part of our source tree. Right now, I just would like to
pinpoint this stubborn
little issue
I just wanted to mention that name did not change. ifconfig eth0 still pulls up
the interface, and same for ifconfig lo etc... /udev/rules/70-something looks
on the up and up, and same with /sys/class/eth0/1
Think the security guard outside would not appreciate having me smash
this sticky keyboard in a room full of humming servers? ;)... I'm just being
silly.
N
On 4/6/13, William Kenworthy bi...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On 07/04/13 01:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
'Evening, Alan.
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 06:36:07PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 06/04/2013 17:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and
typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to
IP6? These are our DB servers and why me!!! Why ME!
No, it's not just you, it's happened to pretty much everybody.
udev-200
now renames eth0, eth1,
Please please PLEASE, for the love of god joseph mary and every other
$DEITY on the planet
STOP SPREADING THIS FUD
It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people who
blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news
announcement, who did not read the CLEARLY WORDED wiki article at
freedesktop.org or alternatively went into mod-induced panic and started
making shit up in their heads.
Steady on, old chap! By it I was meaning the general inconvenience
all round occasioned by the changes between udev-{197,200}. Not
everybody encountered this. For example Dale, and Walt D. didn't have
to do anything. But pretty much everybody else did.
I didnt get hit either either, but (STRONG hint) ... I use eudev, so
dies Dale and I believe Walt uses mdev. Time for those in server
environments to jump ship?
It may hit us eventually, but at the moment its :)
BillK
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev
On 6 April 2013, at 16:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote: ... Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to IP6? These are our DB servers and why me!!! Why ME! No, it's not just you, it's happened to pretty much everybody. udev-200 now renames eth0, eth1, to something else, dependent upon complicated rules. In my case eth0 has become p6p1, though many people seem to have got longer names. ... Yes, it's a pain in the backside. The irony of it is that AIUI these changes were occasioned because the kernel devs refused to make changes which might renumber the network ports for a very small number of users (who were running, at the time, the very latest generation of Dell or HP servers, less than 6 months old). I believe Linus himself was involved and he said no, no, no! we cannot make changes which will break things! Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev
On 04/07/13 04:06, Stroller wrote: On 6 April 2013, at 16:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote: ... Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to IP6? These are our DB servers and why me!!! Why ME! No, it's not just you, it's happened to pretty much everybody. udev-200 now renames eth0, eth1, to something else, dependent upon complicated rules. In my case eth0 has become p6p1, though many people seem to have got longer names. ... Yes, it's a pain in the backside. The irony of it is that AIUI these changes were occasioned because the kernel devs refused to make changes which might renumber the network ports for a very small number of users (who were running, at the time, the very latest generation of Dell or HP servers, less than 6 months old). I believe Linus himself was involved and he said no, no, no! we cannot make changes which will break things! Stroller. Are these new udev rules going across all Linux distros or this is something specific to Gentoo? -- Joseph
