Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 2013-04-08 3:56 PM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: Since Gentoo now recommends GrUB rather by default, it might be nice for folks to know how to use this. ? So the handbook used to recommend LILO? I installed my first gentoo box back in about 2004/2005, and grub was 'the way'... 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...
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 04/09/2013 06:02 AM, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-04-08 3:56 PM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: Since Gentoo now recommends GrUB rather by default, it might be nice for folks to know how to use this. ? So the handbook used to recommend LILO? I installed my first gentoo box back in about 2004/2005, and grub was 'the way'... 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's not. (And neither is GRUB prior to GRUB2.) But it's Stable Enough that that it still works for a lot of people. Some folks swear by it... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
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? -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 05:00:17PM +, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2013-04-07, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org 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... OK, so parts of the news item are not to be taken literally, and other parts are. Perhaps it would be wise to mark the sections so we can tell the difference? ;) 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. It's entirely possible for udev (or any other program) to check whether a file is empty or not and behave differently depending on that test. And if it is explicitly stated that something depends on a file being empty, that's what I assume was indended. Of course it's possible to determine via experimentation that nothing but comments produces the same behavior as empty. Of course we all figured that out after we realized that udev wasn't behaving as was described in the news entry and started reading other documentation. I'll give you all one more to chew on ... this LAN has 5 comps running udev, upgraded from 171 197 200, and NONE of them EVER has this mysterious /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules file. If it was there sometime during these upgrades, and was removed, it was automatically removed and not manually by me using rm to do so. -- 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] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 09:31:43PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:16:45 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: If /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is an empty file or a symlink to /dev/null, The first can obviously be taken quite literally, while the second just might actually require a tiny bit of thought - ie, 'hmmm, wonder if they mean literally 'empty', or just nothing in it that does anything? Even if that were reasonable, how are you supposed to know which they mean? You guessed right and now have the benefit of hindsight, that does not justify ambiguous or inaccurate instructions. Ack! Empty means a zero byte file ... always has, and if the idiots who have started systemd and taken over udev have somehow managed to change that, then we are not going to be able to trust ANYTHING they ever write again, without a new dictionary to define their terms. (Sounds like the present POTUS, Congress, and Supreme Court in the U.S.) Personally I don't now, nor have ever, trusted Kay and Lennart. I depend upon WilliamH to keep the ship afloat as we sail through the udev murk... -- 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] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 04/08/2013 12:04 PM, Bruce Hill wrote: On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 09:31:43PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:16:45 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: If /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is an empty file or a symlink to /dev/null, The first can obviously be taken quite literally, while the second just might actually require a tiny bit of thought - ie, 'hmmm, wonder if they mean literally 'empty', or just nothing in it that does anything? Even if that were reasonable, how are you supposed to know which they mean? You guessed right and now have the benefit of hindsight, that does not justify ambiguous or inaccurate instructions. Ack! Empty means a zero byte file ... always has, and if the idiots who have started systemd and taken over udev have somehow managed to change that, then we are not going to be able to trust ANYTHING they ever write again, without a new dictionary to define their terms. (Sounds like the present POTUS, Congress, and Supreme Court in the U.S.) Personally I don't now, nor have ever, trusted Kay and Lennart. I depend upon WilliamH to keep the ship afloat as we sail through the udev murk... The phrase is kernel-tinted glasses. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 07:42:23PM +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote:
Mike is right, if it's not a dep of another ebuild, you don't need
wpa_supplicant. I just upgraded udev to 200 on the last remote box
(which is always a bit of a thrill after typing reboot return :-) ).
As expected, eth0 came up, everything works fine, wpa_supplicant is not
installed.
Don't know what you guys do for rebooting a headless server blindly like this,
nor if it would work for the udev/NIC situation. But fwiw, what I've always
done for new kernels is:
mingdao@server ~ $ egrep -v (^#|^ *$) /etc/lilo.conf
compact
lba32
default = Gentoo-def
boot = /dev/md0
raid-extra-boot = mbr-only
map = /boot/.map
install = /boot/boot-menu.b # Note that for lilo-22.5.5 or later you
# do not need boot-{text,menu,bmp}.b in
# /boot, as they are linked into the lilo
# binary.
menu-scheme=Wb
prompt
timeout=50
append=panic=10 nomce dolvm domdadm rootfstype=xfs
image = /boot/vmlinuz
root = /dev/md0
label = Gentoo
read-only # Partitions should be mounted read-only for checking
image = /boot/vmlinuz.old
root = /dev/md0
label = Gentoo-def
read-only # Partitions should be mounted read-only for checking
Then issue lilo -R Gentoo or whatever the label of your new kernel, and if
it boots, you're okay. If not, after 10 seconds of panic, it automatically
reboots back into the default kernel and you can check logs to see what you've
broken. (panic=10 append statement and default = Gentoo-def) After you know
the new kernel works, comment the default line. (NB: You can name them
differently, etc. It just helps to know before you reboot that if you panic,
the machine will boot back into the known, good, kernel.)
Granted, this might not help with the udev/NIC situation, but it's saved me
from a few PEBKAC situations, as well as new kernel changes I'd not learned
until the reboot.
--
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] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 01:29:20PM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: After psyching myself and everyone else for the udev 200 update, it failed on compile phase! We are using hardened server, and error message (which I am transferring over manually) is: The specific snippet of code: die econf failed This thing is not going easy N. On 4/7/13, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-04-07 9:38 AM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. Well, hopefully you learned a valuable lesson. I cannot even *fathom* the *idea* of doing a world update on a remote server without going through each and every package to be updated, reading every news item I could find, etc etc ad nauseum, and googling if any systems critical to booting (like udev) are involved. For me, world updates are usually very small because I keep my server updated weekly. I generally sync every day, checking what packages are available, then once that update has been available/unchanged for 3 or 4 days, I update it... waiting even a bit longer (and googling for issues) if the package(s) are critical system packages. Admittedly, doing it this way manually wouldn't work for anyone managing more than a few servers, although I imagine it could be scripted by one with the knowledge/desire. But seriously - there has been so much noise about the whole udev situation in the last months (6+?) that you should really be kicking yourself that you did that. You might not care, but I automatically hit D (delete) in Mutt for every email that's top-posted. Just saying... -- 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] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:58:38PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:35:22 -0400 Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: As for /sbin/ip. I have no such command. I'd recommend installing and becoming familiar with the iproute2 package. I personally find the tools it delivers to be more intuitive than the older tools, and I *think* they are considered to obsolote some tools, such as ifconfig. Ack to Randy's. FWIW: http://inai.de/2008/02/19 -- 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] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 04/08/2013 12:28 PM, Bruce Hill wrote: On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:58:38PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:35:22 -0400 Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: As for /sbin/ip. I have no such command. I'd recommend installing and becoming familiar with the iproute2 package. I personally find the tools it delivers to be more intuitive than the older tools, and I *think* they are considered to obsolote some tools, such as ifconfig. Ack to Randy's. FWIW: http://inai.de/2008/02/19 That page has a handy list at the end. I've gone back to the page twice today...bookmarked. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 08-Apr-13 19:19, Michael Mol wrote: On 04/08/2013 12:28 PM, Bruce Hill wrote: On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:58:38PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:35:22 -0400 Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: As for /sbin/ip. I have no such command. I'd recommend installing and becoming familiar with the iproute2 package. I personally find the tools it delivers to be more intuitive than the older tools, and I *think* they are considered to obsolote some tools, such as ifconfig. Ack to Randy's. FWIW: http://inai.de/2008/02/19 That page has a handy list at the end. I've gone back to the page twice today...bookmarked. Maybe time to update our Gentoo Handbook to use ip instead of ifconfig/route so that users could get used to it right during installation... Jarry -- ___ This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists! Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Apr 9, 2013 12:32 AM, Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote: On 08-Apr-13 19:19, Michael Mol wrote: On 04/08/2013 12:28 PM, Bruce Hill wrote: On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:58:38PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:35:22 -0400 Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: As for /sbin/ip. I have no such command. I'd recommend installing and becoming familiar with the iproute2 package. I personally find the tools it delivers to be more intuitive than the older tools, and I *think* they are considered to obsolote some tools, such as ifconfig. Ack to Randy's. FWIW: http://inai.de/2008/02/19 That page has a handy list at the end. I've gone back to the page twice today...bookmarked. Maybe time to update our Gentoo Handbook to use ip instead of ifconfig/route so that users could get used to it right during installation... Jarry -- TBH, the first time I learnt about iproute2 -- about 3 or 4 years ago -- I no longer use ifconfig. It's so similar to Cisco IOS commands structure that I immediately took a liking to it. (Less cognitive dissonance going back and forth between Linux and Cisco routers). Rgds, --
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Apr 8, 2013 11:17 PM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com
wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 07:42:23PM +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote:
Mike is right, if it's not a dep of another ebuild, you don't need
wpa_supplicant. I just upgraded udev to 200 on the last remote box
(which is always a bit of a thrill after typing reboot return :-) ).
As expected, eth0 came up, everything works fine, wpa_supplicant is not
installed.
Don't know what you guys do for rebooting a headless server blindly like
this,
nor if it would work for the udev/NIC situation. But fwiw, what I've
always
done for new kernels is:
mingdao@server ~ $ egrep -v (^#|^ *$) /etc/lilo.conf
compact
lba32
default = Gentoo-def
boot = /dev/md0
raid-extra-boot = mbr-only
map = /boot/.map
install = /boot/boot-menu.b # Note that for lilo-22.5.5 or later you
# do not need boot-{text,menu,bmp}.b in
# /boot, as they are linked into the lilo
# binary.
menu-scheme=Wb
prompt
timeout=50
append=panic=10 nomce dolvm domdadm rootfstype=xfs
image = /boot/vmlinuz
root = /dev/md0
label = Gentoo
read-only # Partitions should be mounted read-only for checking
image = /boot/vmlinuz.old
root = /dev/md0
label = Gentoo-def
read-only # Partitions should be mounted read-only for checking
Then issue lilo -R Gentoo or whatever the label of your new kernel, and
if
it boots, you're okay. If not, after 10 seconds of panic, it automatically
reboots back into the default kernel and you can check logs to see what
you've
broken. (panic=10 append statement and default = Gentoo-def) After you
know
the new kernel works, comment the default line. (NB: You can name them
differently, etc. It just helps to know before you reboot that if you
panic,
the machine will boot back into the known, good, kernel.)
Granted, this might not help with the udev/NIC situation, but it's saved
me
from a few PEBKAC situations, as well as new kernel changes I'd not
learned
until the reboot.
Personally, I always try to install *any* Linux server on top of Xen (in my
case, XenServer). That way, I got a remote console always.
Rgds,
--
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 09:40:41PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote: /sbin/ip link addr show That will tell you the names of your interfaces, as they currently exist. FWIW that command should be ip addr show rather than ip link addr show, and no need for full path in later versions (forgetting which version changed this behavior). -- 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] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Am 08.04.2013 18:16, schrieb Bruce Hill:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 07:42:23PM +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote:
Mike is right, if it's not a dep of another ebuild, you don't need
wpa_supplicant. I just upgraded udev to 200 on the last remote box
(which is always a bit of a thrill after typing reboot return :-) ).
As expected, eth0 came up, everything works fine, wpa_supplicant is not
installed.
Don't know what you guys do for rebooting a headless server blindly like this,
nor if it would work for the udev/NIC situation. But fwiw, what I've always
done for new kernels is:
mingdao@server ~ $ egrep -v (^#|^ *$) /etc/lilo.conf
compact
lba32
default = Gentoo-def
boot = /dev/md0
raid-extra-boot = mbr-only
map = /boot/.map
install = /boot/boot-menu.b # Note that for lilo-22.5.5 or later you
# do not need boot-{text,menu,bmp}.b in
# /boot, as they are linked into the lilo
# binary.
menu-scheme=Wb
prompt
timeout=50
append=panic=10 nomce dolvm domdadm rootfstype=xfs
image = /boot/vmlinuz
root = /dev/md0
label = Gentoo
read-only # Partitions should be mounted read-only for checking
image = /boot/vmlinuz.old
root = /dev/md0
label = Gentoo-def
read-only # Partitions should be mounted read-only for checking
Then issue lilo -R Gentoo or whatever the label of your new kernel, and if
it boots, you're okay. If not, after 10 seconds of panic, it automatically
reboots back into the default kernel and you can check logs to see what you've
broken. (panic=10 append statement and default = Gentoo-def) After you know
the new kernel works, comment the default line. (NB: You can name them
differently, etc. It just helps to know before you reboot that if you panic,
the machine will boot back into the known, good, kernel.)
Granted, this might not help with the udev/NIC situation, but it's saved me
from a few PEBKAC situations, as well as new kernel changes I'd not learned
until the reboot.
I have something similar with grub (with grub set default, savedefault,
fallback). Also most machines have some sort of rescue access with like
ipmi serial over lan or a eric card (kvm). But some remote machines
don't and rebooting them is always a thrill :) I mean, there are rescue
systems that can be invoked via bootp, but you are blind while rebooting.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 09:46:28PM +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote: I have something similar with grub (with grub set default, savedefault, fallback). Also most machines have some sort of rescue access with like ipmi serial over lan or a eric card (kvm). But some remote machines don't and rebooting them is always a thrill :) I mean, there are rescue systems that can be invoked via bootp, but you are blind while rebooting. Hi Michael, If you have the time, maybe you can post your GrUB setup and a short HOW-TO do this somewhere. I've often mentioned doing it with LiLO in #gentoo on Freenode and always get flamed by GrUB fanbois, but to date none has been able to produce how to actually do it with GrUB. Since Gentoo now recommends GrUB rather by default, it might be nice for folks to know how to use this. Thanks, Bruce -- 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] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Am 08.04.2013 21:56, schrieb Bruce Hill: On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 09:46:28PM +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote: I have something similar with grub (with grub set default, savedefault, fallback). Also most machines have some sort of rescue access with like ipmi serial over lan or a eric card (kvm). But some remote machines don't and rebooting them is always a thrill :) I mean, there are rescue systems that can be invoked via bootp, but you are blind while rebooting. Hi Michael, If you have the time, maybe you can post your GrUB setup and a short HOW-TO do this somewhere. I've often mentioned doing it with LiLO in #gentoo on Freenode and always get flamed by GrUB fanbois, but to date none has been able to produce how to actually do it with GrUB. Since Gentoo now recommends GrUB rather by default, it might be nice for folks to know how to use this. Thanks, Bruce This actually is pretty straight forward :) Here's a small sample config for grub 0.97. But I'm pretty sure that this will work with grub2 too. ### grub.conf ### # set default boot entry to prev. saved state: default saved # seq. order of boot entries fallback 1 2 3 # here are the kernels title gentoo 0 kernel /kernel panic=15 savedefault fallback title gentoo 1 kernel /kernel panic=15 savedefault fallback title gentoo 2 kernel /kernel panic=15 savedefault fallback title gentoo 3 kernel /kernel panic=15 savedefault fallback ### end grub.conf ### what I now do is this: set the default boot entry to zero with % grub-set-default 0 On the next reboot this happens: grub reads the default: 0 grub boots entry 0 and sets the default entry to 1 (or 2 according to the fallback line in grub.conf) If the systems panics, it reboots. But this time grub will load entry 1 as it is the default now (and so on, and so on). If the systems booted successfully and you verified that it actually booted the new kernel, you now have to set grub default to 0 with grub-set-default. You can to this with a small script in /etc/local.d/local.start Maybe send the admin a warning that the system has not booted with the default kernel. That's up to you :) HTH
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 10:10:09PM +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote: Hi Michael, If you have the time, maybe you can post your GrUB setup and a short HOW-TO do this somewhere. I've often mentioned doing it with LiLO in #gentoo on Freenode and always get flamed by GrUB fanbois, but to date none has been able to produce how to actually do it with GrUB. Since Gentoo now recommends GrUB rather by default, it might be nice for folks to know how to use this. Thanks, Bruce This actually is pretty straight forward :) Here's a small sample config for grub 0.97. But I'm pretty sure that this will work with grub2 too. ### grub.conf ### # set default boot entry to prev. saved state: default saved # seq. order of boot entries fallback 1 2 3 # here are the kernels title gentoo 0 kernel /kernel panic=15 savedefault fallback title gentoo 1 kernel /kernel panic=15 savedefault fallback title gentoo 2 kernel /kernel panic=15 savedefault fallback title gentoo 3 kernel /kernel panic=15 savedefault fallback ### end grub.conf ### what I now do is this: set the default boot entry to zero with % grub-set-default 0 On the next reboot this happens: grub reads the default: 0 grub boots entry 0 and sets the default entry to 1 (or 2 according to the fallback line in grub.conf) If the systems panics, it reboots. But this time grub will load entry 1 as it is the default now (and so on, and so on). If the systems booted successfully and you verified that it actually booted the new kernel, you now have to set grub default to 0 with grub-set-default. You can to this with a small script in /etc/local.d/local.start Maybe send the admin a warning that the system has not booted with the default kernel. That's up to you :) Thanks Michael, nice work. I'm going to install Gentoo on some new hardware as soon as I get some time ... a new HTPC box, hoping that XBMC works better than the last time ... with probably XFCE as the DE. I'll install GrUB this time just to learn this setup. Bruce -- 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] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:20:57 -0500, Bruce Hill wrote: You might not care, but I automatically hit D (delete) in Mutt for every email that's top-posted. Just saying... But not until after replying? :P -- Neil Bothwick Are Cheerios really doughnut seeds? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 11:11:08PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:20:57 -0500, Bruce Hill wrote: You might not care, but I automatically hit D (delete) in Mutt for every email that's top-posted. Just saying... But not until after replying? :P Well, if I see white text just after the header, it's an automatic D. ;) -- 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] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Am Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:23:04 -0400
schrieb Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com:
On 04/06/2013 11:19 PM, Nick Khamis wrote:
Hello Michael,
Is it because you disabled udev's renaming entirely via the kernel
command-line parameter? Because you've done some magic in
/etc/udev/rules.d/?
I did not change 70-something contents. I deleted it and let udev
regenerate it.
The name in rules.d is net=eth0 and net=eth1 pointing to the correct
mac address.
Your help is greatly appreciated,
Just an FYI...when I removed them, udev did not regenerate them. You
might try removing them again (or moving them to ~root/ for
safekeeping), rebooting, and seeing what happens.
That udev regenerated them for you is very, very weird.
Especially considering that the programs for generating them aren't installed
anymore. Look at the output of qlist -e udev|grep write and see if you find
them (the programs were /lib/udev/write_{cd,net}_rules). For me grep finds
nothing, so I have to ask: are you *really* using udev-200?
--
Marc Joliet
--
People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we
don't - Bjarne Stroustrup
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 06.04.2013 21:11, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Jarry wrote:
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...
You're not alone, this happened for me on all my 4 machines.
Same confusion here, but this paragraph saved my ass
--
In a normal new installation there are no files in /etc/udev/rules.d
and if you haven't edited any files you have in there, you should most
likely backup and delete them all if they don't belong to any packages.
--
So I checked and just removed all files. luckily everything went fine
:)
So I must add my point to complaining about news item
not beeing quite clear. And this happens quite often...
heiko
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we
should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked
away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related
package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine.
I reset the system and poof Here I am at the co-location on Sunday
at 9:00am.
Serves me right I guess.
I double checked. When deleting 70-something rules and restarting the
machine they get regenerated.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
N.
On 4/7/13, Heiko Zinke ma...@rabuju.com wrote:
On 06.04.2013 21:11, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Jarry wrote:
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...
You're not alone, this happened for me on all my 4 machines.
Same confusion here, but this paragraph saved my ass
--
In a normal new installation there are no files in /etc/udev/rules.d
and if you haven't edited any files you have in there, you should most
likely backup and delete them all if they don't belong to any packages.
--
So I checked and just removed all files. luckily everything went fine
:)
So I must add my point to complaining about news item
not beeing quite clear. And this happens quite often...
heiko
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Manually bringing up eth0 using ifconfig got me up and running. It's
quite shaky though. net.eth0 does not work any more and of course
neither does sshd or any other service that requires net.eth*. Thanks
Michael.
If they're supposed to be configured via DHCP, try dhclient
$interface_name. If they're supposed to be statically configured, try
using ifconfig to configure them manually.
Now that I have internet connection, I am not sure what my line of
action should be.
N.
On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we
should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked
away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related
package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine.
I reset the system and poof Here I am at the co-location on Sunday
at 9:00am.
Serves me right I guess.
I double checked. When deleting 70-something rules and restarting the
machine they get regenerated.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
N.
On 4/7/13, Heiko Zinke ma...@rabuju.com wrote:
On 06.04.2013 21:11, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Jarry wrote:
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...
You're not alone, this happened for me on all my 4 machines.
Same confusion here, but this paragraph saved my ass
--
In a normal new installation there are no files in /etc/udev/rules.d
and if you haven't edited any files you have in there, you should most
likely backup and delete them all if they don't belong to any packages.
--
So I checked and just removed all files. luckily everything went fine
:)
So I must add my point to complaining about news item
not beeing quite clear. And this happens quite often...
heiko
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 04/07/2013 10:01 AM, Nick Khamis wrote: Manually bringing up eth0 using ifconfig got me up and running. It's quite shaky though. net.eth0 does not work any more and of course neither does sshd or any other service that requires net.eth*. Thanks Michael. If they're supposed to be configured via DHCP, try dhclient $interface_name. If they're supposed to be statically configured, try using ifconfig to configure them manually. Now that I have internet connection, I am not sure what my line of action should be. Figure out why you're still running udev-171. I suspect your errors come from having the old version of udev after everything updated around it. Or switch to mdev or eudev. Your call...but your old udev is probably at the heart of your problem. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:38:23 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine. I reset the system and poof Here I am at the co-location on Sunday at 9:00am. Serves me right I guess. I double checked. When deleting 70-something rules and restarting the machine they get regenerated. That's how udev-171 was supposed to work. You need to update to 200 then delete the file and it will stay deleted. You really need to read the news item and associated page CAREFULLY, then work through them CAREFULLY and the upgrade should do just what you want. udev, or whatever device manager you choose, is a critical system component, not the sort of thing you should leave to update itself without reading the instructions, especially on a remote server. -- Neil Bothwick MICROSOFT: Most Intelligent Customers Realize Our Software Only Fools Teenagers signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare There are 4500 people coming into work tomorrow morning, and this machine also happens to be our LDAP server. N. On 4/7/13, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:38:23 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine. I reset the system and poof Here I am at the co-location on Sunday at 9:00am. Serves me right I guess. I double checked. When deleting 70-something rules and restarting the machine they get regenerated. That's how udev-171 was supposed to work. You need to update to 200 then delete the file and it will stay deleted. You really need to read the news item and associated page CAREFULLY, then work through them CAREFULLY and the upgrade should do just what you want. udev, or whatever device manager you choose, is a critical system component, not the sort of thing you should leave to update itself without reading the instructions, especially on a remote server. -- Neil Bothwick MICROSOFT: Most Intelligent Customers Realize Our Software Only Fools Teenagers
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Installing wpa_supplicant got the network scripts working again. Not sure why. Does anyone know why we need wpa_supplication now? On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare There are 4500 people coming into work tomorrow morning, and this machine also happens to be our LDAP server. N. On 4/7/13, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:38:23 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine. I reset the system and poof Here I am at the co-location on Sunday at 9:00am. Serves me right I guess. I double checked. When deleting 70-something rules and restarting the machine they get regenerated. That's how udev-171 was supposed to work. You need to update to 200 then delete the file and it will stay deleted. You really need to read the news item and associated page CAREFULLY, then work through them CAREFULLY and the upgrade should do just what you want. udev, or whatever device manager you choose, is a critical system component, not the sort of thing you should leave to update itself without reading the instructions, especially on a remote server. -- Neil Bothwick MICROSOFT: Most Intelligent Customers Realize Our Software Only Fools Teenagers
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Are you using 802.1x or wireless on that machine? If not, I can't think of a reason you'd need it, outside of it being a hard dependency of some other package. On 04/07/2013 10:22 AM, Nick Khamis wrote: Installing wpa_supplicant got the network scripts working again. Not sure why. Does anyone know why we need wpa_supplication now? On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare There are 4500 people coming into work tomorrow morning, and this machine also happens to be our LDAP server. N. On 4/7/13, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:38:23 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine. I reset the system and poof Here I am at the co-location on Sunday at 9:00am. Serves me right I guess. I double checked. When deleting 70-something rules and restarting the machine they get regenerated. That's how udev-171 was supposed to work. You need to update to 200 then delete the file and it will stay deleted. You really need to read the news item and associated page CAREFULLY, then work through them CAREFULLY and the upgrade should do just what you want. udev, or whatever device manager you choose, is a critical system component, not the sort of thing you should leave to update itself without reading the instructions, especially on a remote server. -- Neil Bothwick MICROSOFT: Most Intelligent Customers Realize Our Software Only Fools Teenagers signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
No... I'm stumped. I really don't want it in there either... I will attempt removing it once finished updating the system. N. On 4/7/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: Are you using 802.1x or wireless on that machine? If not, I can't think of a reason you'd need it, outside of it being a hard dependency of some other package. On 04/07/2013 10:22 AM, Nick Khamis wrote: Installing wpa_supplicant got the network scripts working again. Not sure why. Does anyone know why we need wpa_supplication now? On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare There are 4500 people coming into work tomorrow morning, and this machine also happens to be our LDAP server. N. On 4/7/13, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:38:23 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine. I reset the system and poof Here I am at the co-location on Sunday at 9:00am. Serves me right I guess. I double checked. When deleting 70-something rules and restarting the machine they get regenerated. That's how udev-171 was supposed to work. You need to update to 200 then delete the file and it will stay deleted. You really need to read the news item and associated page CAREFULLY, then work through them CAREFULLY and the upgrade should do just what you want. udev, or whatever device manager you choose, is a critical system component, not the sort of thing you should leave to update itself without reading the instructions, especially on a remote server. -- Neil Bothwick MICROSOFT: Most Intelligent Customers Realize Our Software Only Fools Teenagers
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 10:20:02 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a pessimist... PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on this list. -- Neil Bothwick the sum of all human intelligence is constant, only the number of humans increases. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a pessimist... PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on this list. Makes sense and I apologize for the top posts. Have everything up to date with udev in the crosshairs. That being said: 1) Network drivers are compiled as modules 2) I deleted the contents of /etc/udev/rules.d (i.e, 70-something) 3) Removed udev-postmount from runlevels. That should be sufficient to hold onto the old names eth0/1? Thanks for all your help. N. On 4/7/13, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 10:20:02 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a pessimist... PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on this list. -- Neil Bothwick the sum of all human intelligence is constant, only the number of humans increases.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 17:00:24 Nick Khamis wrote: You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a pessimist... PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on this list. Makes sense and I apologize for the top posts. Have everything up to date with udev in the crosshairs. That being said: 1) Network drivers are compiled as modules 2) I deleted the contents of /etc/udev/rules.d (i.e, 70-something) 3) Removed udev-postmount from runlevels. That should be sufficient to hold onto the old names eth0/1? If they are built as modules, then I would expect the old naming convention to be retained - unless you had renamed them in a different order in your 70- something... rules. This is not all though. Check the page: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Udev/upgrade You also need CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y in your kernel and if there is a /dev entry in your /etc/fstab, then it must have devtmpfs as its fs type. Most installations would not have such an entry in /etc/fstab - but better check to be safe. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 4/7/13, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 17:00:24 Nick Khamis wrote: You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a pessimist... PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on this list. Makes sense and I apologize for the top posts. Have everything up to date with udev in the crosshairs. That being said: 1) Network drivers are compiled as modules 2) I deleted the contents of /etc/udev/rules.d (i.e, 70-something) 3) Removed udev-postmount from runlevels. That should be sufficient to hold onto the old names eth0/1? If they are built as modules, then I would expect the old naming convention to be retained - unless you had renamed them in a different order in your 70- something... rules. This is not all though. Check the page: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Udev/upgrade You also need CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y in your kernel and if there is a /dev entry in your /etc/fstab, then it must have devtmpfs as its fs type. Most installations would not have such an entry in /etc/fstab - but better check to be safe. -- Regards, Mick Oh yes! The devtempfs is enabled in the kernel, and no entry in fstab. Forgot to mention that. N.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 2013-04-07 12:11 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: if there is a /dev entry in your /etc/fstab, then it must have devtmpfs as its fs type. Most installations would not have such an entry in /etc/fstab - but better check to be safe. I've heard this many times, but can anyone explain just *when* you would want or need a /dev entry in your fstab?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 17:37:00 Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-04-07 12:11 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: if there is a /dev entry in your /etc/fstab, then it must have devtmpfs as its fs type. Most installations would not have such an entry in /etc/fstab - but better check to be safe. I've heard this many times, but can anyone explain just *when* you would want or need a /dev entry in your fstab? Only to state the obvious: When your /dev resides in a separate partition. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 2013-04-07, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org 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... OK, so parts of the news item are not to be taken literally, and other parts are. Perhaps it would be wise to mark the sections so we can tell the difference? ;) 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. It's entirely possible for udev (or any other program) to check whether a file is empty or not and behave differently depending on that test. And if it is explicitly stated that something depends on a file being empty, that's what I assume was indended. Of course it's possible to determine via experimentation that nothing but comments produces the same behavior as empty. Of course we all figured that out after we realized that udev wasn't behaving as was described in the news entry and started reading other documentation. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! PEGGY FLEMMING is at stealing BASKET BALLS to gmail.comfeed the babies in VERMONT.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 2013-04-07 1:00 PM, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: OK, so parts of the news item are not to be taken literally, and other parts are. Perhaps it would be wise to mark the sections so we can tell the difference? ;) Context is everything. You can't equate Remove the udev-postmount init script from your runlevels. with If /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is an empty file or a symlink to /dev/null, The first can obviously be taken quite literally, while the second just might actually require a tiny bit of thought - ie, 'hmmm, wonder if they mean literally 'empty', or just nothing in it that does anything? Imnsho, the latter is obviously what was meant, while just as obviously a truly *empty* file would do the same thing as one with no *effective* content.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 2013-04-07 9:38 AM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. Well, hopefully you learned a valuable lesson. I cannot even *fathom* the *idea* of doing a world update on a remote server without going through each and every package to be updated, reading every news item I could find, etc etc ad nauseum, and googling if any systems critical to booting (like udev) are involved. For me, world updates are usually very small because I keep my server updated weekly. I generally sync every day, checking what packages are available, then once that update has been available/unchanged for 3 or 4 days, I update it... waiting even a bit longer (and googling for issues) if the package(s) are critical system packages. Admittedly, doing it this way manually wouldn't work for anyone managing more than a few servers, although I imagine it could be scripted by one with the knowledge/desire. But seriously - there has been so much noise about the whole udev situation in the last months (6+?) that you should really be kicking yourself that you did that.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
After psyching myself and everyone else for the udev 200 update, it failed on compile phase! We are using hardened server, and error message (which I am transferring over manually) is: The specific snippet of code: die econf failed This thing is not going easy N. On 4/7/13, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-04-07 9:38 AM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. Well, hopefully you learned a valuable lesson. I cannot even *fathom* the *idea* of doing a world update on a remote server without going through each and every package to be updated, reading every news item I could find, etc etc ad nauseum, and googling if any systems critical to booting (like udev) are involved. For me, world updates are usually very small because I keep my server updated weekly. I generally sync every day, checking what packages are available, then once that update has been available/unchanged for 3 or 4 days, I update it... waiting even a bit longer (and googling for issues) if the package(s) are critical system packages. Admittedly, doing it this way manually wouldn't work for anyone managing more than a few servers, although I imagine it could be scripted by one with the knowledge/desire. But seriously - there has been so much noise about the whole udev situation in the last months (6+?) that you should really be kicking yourself that you did that.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Am 07.04.2013 16:32, schrieb Nick Khamis: No... I'm stumped. I really don't want it in there either... I will attempt removing it once finished updating the system. N. On 4/7/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: Are you using 802.1x or wireless on that machine? If not, I can't think of a reason you'd need it, outside of it being a hard dependency of some other package. Mike is right, if it's not a dep of another ebuild, you don't need wpa_supplicant. I just upgraded udev to 200 on the last remote box (which is always a bit of a thrill after typing reboot return :-) ). As expected, eth0 came up, everything works fine, wpa_supplicant is not installed.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news: 1. tempfs in kernel 2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d 3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel 4) check fstab for the /tmp And it changed! This is the pits dude... N. On 4/7/13, Michael Hampicke gentoo-u...@hadt.biz wrote: Am 07.04.2013 16:32, schrieb Nick Khamis: No... I'm stumped. I really don't want it in there either... I will attempt removing it once finished updating the system. N. On 4/7/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: Are you using 802.1x or wireless on that machine? If not, I can't think of a reason you'd need it, outside of it being a hard dependency of some other package. Mike is right, if it's not a dep of another ebuild, you don't need wpa_supplicant. I just upgraded udev to 200 on the last remote box (which is always a bit of a thrill after typing reboot return :-) ). As expected, eth0 came up, everything works fine, wpa_supplicant is not installed.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 2013-04-07 1:48 PM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news: 1. tempfs in kernel 2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d 3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel 4) check fstab for the /tmp And it changed! WHAT changed???
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0 and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as modules. N On 4/7/13, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-04-07 1:48 PM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news: 1. tempfs in kernel 2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d 3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel 4) check fstab for the /tmp And it changed! WHAT changed???
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? N On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0 and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as modules. N On 4/7/13, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-04-07 1:48 PM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news: 1. tempfs in kernel 2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d 3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel 4) check fstab for the /tmp And it changed! WHAT changed???
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
For those that have an error compiling udev 200: # emerge -1 XML-Parser # perl-cleaner --all There was not mention of this in the news. Nor will the package pull them in as a dependency. N. On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? N On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0 and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as modules. N On 4/7/13, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-04-07 1:48 PM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news: 1. tempfs in kernel 2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d 3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel 4) check fstab for the /tmp And it changed! WHAT changed???
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 18:48:02 Nick Khamis wrote: I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news: 1. tempfs in kernel I guess you're talking about: CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y 2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d That's OK. 3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel Good. 4) check fstab for the /tmp I guess again you mean: /dev And it changed! If your NICs changed their name then most likely the drivers were built in the kernel and not as modules. If so, you have following 3 options: 1. Go with the new names. Change your entries in /etc/conf.d/net to use the new names as these are shown here: ls -la /sys/class/net/ and then change the symlinks in your /etc/init.d/from the old interface names to the new: cd /etc/init.d rm net.eth0 ln -s net.lo netNew_Name ls -l net.New_Name lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 6 Mar 31 11:51 /etc/init.d/net.enp11s0 - net.lo the last line is what mine shows, for what used to be net.eth0 on *my* machine. 2. You categorically don't want the new 'predictable' names and you want to stay as you were: Rebuild your kernel with the drivers for the NICs as modules. The kernel *should* rename them to what they were before. I can't vouch for this, but NICs which are not built in here were not renamed by udev. 3. You categorically don't want the new 'predictable' names and you want to stay as you were, but you don't want to rebuild the kernel: 3.1 Create a new empty file: touch /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules and reboot. The kernel will rename the interfaces hopefully as they were before. 3.2 Instead of creating the empty 80-net-name-slot.rules file, append this option in your grub kernel line: net.ifnames=0 I hope some of the above will work for you and you'll be able to get back where you were a couple of days ago. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Am 07.04.2013 20:08, schrieb Nick Khamis: For those that have an error compiling udev 200: # emerge -1 XML-Parser # perl-cleaner --all There was not mention of this in the news. Nor will the package pull them in as a dependency. N. On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? N On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0 and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as modules. This is most likely related to your previous world update. Maybe there was an update for perl, after which you did not run perl-cleaner.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
I went into the kernel, rebuilt it with no changes (network driver was already built as a module), rebooted and nothing changed. Option 2 worked ok. As for the x86 machines, they were also updated blindly (94 packages udev 200) included... 70-presistent file in rules.d and no problems. eth0 was still eth0... N. On 4/7/13, Michael Hampicke gentoo-u...@hadt.biz wrote: Am 07.04.2013 20:08, schrieb Nick Khamis: For those that have an error compiling udev 200: # emerge -1 XML-Parser # perl-cleaner --all There was not mention of this in the news. Nor will the package pull them in as a dependency. N. On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? N On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0 and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as modules. This is most likely related to your previous world update. Maybe there was an update for perl, after which you did not run perl-cleaner.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Oooops, I meant option 3.1: 3.1 Create a new empty file: touch /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules and reboot. The kernel will rename the interfaces hopefully as they were before. N. On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I went into the kernel, rebuilt it with no changes (network driver was already built as a module), rebooted and nothing changed. Option 2 worked ok. As for the x86 machines, they were also updated blindly (94 packages udev 200) included... 70-presistent file in rules.d and no problems. eth0 was still eth0... N. On 4/7/13, Michael Hampicke gentoo-u...@hadt.biz wrote: Am 07.04.2013 20:08, schrieb Nick Khamis: For those that have an error compiling udev 200: # emerge -1 XML-Parser # perl-cleaner --all There was not mention of this in the news. Nor will the package pull them in as a dependency. N. On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? N On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0 and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as modules. This is most likely related to your previous world update. Maybe there was an update for perl, after which you did not run perl-cleaner.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 19:48:13 Nick Khamis wrote: Oooops, I meant option 3.1: 3.1 Create a new empty file: touch /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules and reboot. The kernel will rename the interfaces hopefully as they were before. N. On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I went into the kernel, rebuilt it with no changes (network driver was already built as a module), rebooted and nothing changed. Option 2 worked ok. As for the x86 machines, they were also updated blindly (94 packages udev 200) included... 70-presistent file in rules.d and no problems. eth0 was still eth0... N. Kewl! If all interfaces are as expected and the servers are up and running, you can hopefully enjoy what's left of your weekend. :-) Interesting to note that having the drivers as modules does not work on your machines. Hmm ... I wonder if there is a difference between cards on the mobo and cards on USB/cardbus and the like. I am getting to hate udev's logic more and more with each update ... -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 14:04:35 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? No, it's like reading the news item. Either symlink the file mentioned to /dev/null or add the kernel boot option it recommends. The default is the new behaviour, as you should expect. Why would they change the behaviour because they consider the old way broken, then default to the old way? -- Neil Bothwick Ralph's Observation - It is a mistake to allow any mechanical object to realize that you are in a hurry. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:14:36 +0100, Mick wrote: Rebuild your kernel with the drivers for the NICs as modules. The kernel *should* rename them to what they were before. I can't vouch for this, but NICs which are not built in here were not renamed by udev. Where does this come from? Udev renames the interfaces when it initialises them, what difference does it make where it loads the driver code from? I am seeing consistent behaviour across machines with drivers built in and as modules. -- Neil Bothwick If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:16:45 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: If /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is an empty file or a symlink to /dev/null, The first can obviously be taken quite literally, while the second just might actually require a tiny bit of thought - ie, 'hmmm, wonder if they mean literally 'empty', or just nothing in it that does anything? Even if that were reasonable, how are you supposed to know which they mean? You guessed right and now have the benefit of hindsight, that does not justify ambiguous or inaccurate instructions. -- Neil Bothwick Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 02:04:35PM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? No, it isn't. There are several ways to name your interfaces. They are discussed on the freedesktop.org wiki page linked in the news item. William pgp6UzYmzHCN8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 21:25:48 Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:14:36 +0100, Mick wrote: Rebuild your kernel with the drivers for the NICs as modules. The kernel *should* rename them to what they were before. I can't vouch for this, but NICs which are not built in here were not renamed by udev. Where does this come from? Udev renames the interfaces when it initialises them, what difference does it make where it loads the driver code from? I am seeing consistent behaviour across machines with drivers built in and as modules. I don't, and recall reading about this somewhere (was it this M/L? ) but can't find it right now. I have noticed that PCI installed NICs get renamed by udev, while extreneous NICs, e.g. USB based devices retain their old naming convention. In my case the non-MoBo cards and devices happened to have drivers installed as modules - they were not renamed. Perhaps I drew an erroneous correlation. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 22:20:51 +0100, Mick wrote: Where does this come from? Udev renames the interfaces when it initialises them, what difference does it make where it loads the driver code from? I am seeing consistent behaviour across machines with drivers built in and as modules. I don't, and recall reading about this somewhere (was it this M/L? ) but can't find it right now. I've read suggestions, but no evidence. I have noticed that PCI installed NICs get renamed by udev, while extreneous NICs, e.g. USB based devices retain their old naming convention. In my case the non-MoBo cards and devices happened to have drivers installed as modules - they were not renamed. Perhaps I drew an erroneous correlation. I have a couple of devices that are not renamed, the drivers are modules but they also give nothing useful when running the udevadm command from the news item. I think it is more likely that the lack of renaming is due to udev not being able to find a unique name to give them. -- Neil Bothwick The law of Probability Dispersal decrees that whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Jarry wrote:
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...
You're not alone, this happened for me on all my 4 machines.
So I must add my point to complaining about news item
not beeing quite clear. And this happens quite often...
- Jörg
[gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
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
For me its built in.
- Jörg
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Oh dear what did I start!@!@! I'm sorry, I did not know this was a
machine brewing. Don't follow the mailing list all that often. I
updated 3 x86 machines with no problem but the 64 just took a crap...
I agree! Should have read the notes.
N.
On 4/6/13, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
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
For me its built in.
- Jörg
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Our net card was also build as a module Volker, did you include
your net driver for example in /etc/conf.d/modules?
N.
On 4/6/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh dear what did I start!@!@! I'm sorry, I did not know this was a
machine brewing. Don't follow the mailing list all that often. I
updated 3 x86 machines with no problem but the 64 just took a crap...
I agree! Should have read the notes.
N.
On 4/6/13, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
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
For me its built in.
- Jörg
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Am 06.04.2013 23:19, schrieb Nick Khamis: Our net card was also build as a module Volker, did you include your net driver for example in /etc/conf.d/modules? no I removed the 70-something rules, and did pretty much nothing else. /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules just exists and is full of text. And nothing changed.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Am 06.04.2013 23:28, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann: Am 06.04.2013 23:19, schrieb Nick Khamis: Our net card was also build as a module Volker, did you include your net driver for example in /etc/conf.d/modules? no I removed the 70-something rules, and did pretty much nothing else. /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules just exists and is full of text. And nothing changed. I did the same on my machines. Just removed the 70 persistent rules file. Nothing changed. I have only one machine left which I will update soon, but I suspect there also will be no problems. Some machines have the nic driver as a module, some have it built into kernel.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Well I looked into /sys/class/net as mentioned by Alan. In there I see eth0/ eth1/ lo/ and sit0/. Not sure what too look for in (e.g. eth0/). /sys/class/net/eth0/ifindex says 3. Other files look ok, for example address (contains mac address if that has not changed...). N. On 4/6/13, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 06.04.2013 23:19, schrieb Nick Khamis: Our net card was also build as a module Volker, did you include your net driver for example in /etc/conf.d/modules? no I removed the 70-something rules, and did pretty much nothing else. /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules just exists and is full of text. And nothing changed.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
In attempted to delete 70-something rules from /etc/udev/rules.d/ and it was recreated on boot with the same content. I don't think the device got renamed since ifconfig eth0 shows the correct info. Your help is greatly appreciated, N. On 4/6/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Well I looked into /sys/class/net as mentioned by Alan. In there I see eth0/ eth1/ lo/ and sit0/. Not sure what too look for in (e.g. eth0/). /sys/class/net/eth0/ifindex says 3. Other files look ok, for example address (contains mac address if that has not changed...). N. On 4/6/13, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 06.04.2013 23:19, schrieb Nick Khamis: Our net card was also build as a module Volker, did you include your net driver for example in /etc/conf.d/modules? no I removed the 70-something rules, and did pretty much nothing else. /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules just exists and is full of text. And nothing changed.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
I took a closer look at /etc/udev/70-something-rules-net and /sys/class/net/eth0/ and all the ATTR (i.e., address, type, dev_id) line up fine. I did not find a name file in /sys/class/net/eth0 however, name=eth0 in etc/udev/70-something-rules-net. Ifconfig alone returns nothing. Ifconfig eth0/1 and lo returns the interface with no tx and rx traffic. And no ip address as set in conf.d/net. Please help guys. Server room is numbing.. N. On 4/6/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: In attempted to delete 70-something rules from /etc/udev/rules.d/ and it was recreated on boot with the same content. I don't think the device got renamed since ifconfig eth0 shows the correct info. Your help is greatly appreciated, N. On 4/6/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Well I looked into /sys/class/net as mentioned by Alan. In there I see eth0/ eth1/ lo/ and sit0/. Not sure what too look for in (e.g. eth0/). /sys/class/net/eth0/ifindex says 3. Other files look ok, for example address (contains mac address if that has not changed...). N. On 4/6/13, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 06.04.2013 23:19, schrieb Nick Khamis: Our net card was also build as a module Volker, did you include your net driver for example in /etc/conf.d/modules? no I removed the 70-something rules, and did pretty much nothing else. /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules just exists and is full of text. And nothing changed.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 04/06/2013 08:53 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: I took a closer look at /etc/udev/70-something-rules-net and /sys/class/net/eth0/ and all the ATTR (i.e., address, type, dev_id) line up fine. I did not find a name file in /sys/class/net/eth0 however, name=eth0 in etc/udev/70-something-rules-net. Ifconfig alone returns nothing. Ifconfig eth0/1 and lo returns the interface with no tx and rx traffic. And no ip address as set in conf.d/net. Please help guys. Server room is numbing.. /sbin/ip link addr show That will tell you the names of your interfaces, as they currently exist. You cannot reliably use 70-persistent-net-rules to assign interfaces names which the kernel may chose. This means things like 'eth0' and 'wlan0' are unreliable in principle. Once you know what the interface name will be, rename /etc/init.d/net.eth0 to /etc/init.d/net.$YOUR_INTERFACE_NAME_HERE , remove /etc/runlevels/net.eth0 and create a symlink in /etc/runlevels pointing at your new /etc/init.d/net.$WHATEVER file. Then /etc/init.d/net.$WHATEVER restart ... and things should come up, at least partially. To find anything else that might be broken: find /etc|grep eth0 find /etc -print0|xargs -0 grep eth0|egrep -v ':#' and rename 'eth0' there to your new interface name. I just went through this entire process on one of my machines...but I wiped all the files out of /etc/udev/rules.d/ and went with udev's new defaults, rather than set up my on persistent net rules for this machine. (That's a task for another day.) Frankly, the process is a PITA...and I'm going to go back to a persistent-net.rules file in the future; having to go through that entire process because of a NIC swap or an upstream behavior tweak is not something I care to have to do. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
I do not have /etc/ip however, I do have /etc/ipmaddr show: 1: lo inet6 ff02::1 2: sit0 inte6 ff02::1 3: eth0 link 33:33:00:00:00:01 inet6 ff02:1 4: eth1 link 33:33:00:00:00:01 inet6 ff02:1 Too much inte6 for my liking... Did I somehow get rid of ipv4? N. On 4/6/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/06/2013 08:53 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: I took a closer look at /etc/udev/70-something-rules-net and /sys/class/net/eth0/ and all the ATTR (i.e., address, type, dev_id) line up fine. I did not find a name file in /sys/class/net/eth0 however, name=eth0 in etc/udev/70-something-rules-net. Ifconfig alone returns nothing. Ifconfig eth0/1 and lo returns the interface with no tx and rx traffic. And no ip address as set in conf.d/net. Please help guys. Server room is numbing.. /sbin/ip link addr show That will tell you the names of your interfaces, as they currently exist. You cannot reliably use 70-persistent-net-rules to assign interfaces names which the kernel may chose. This means things like 'eth0' and 'wlan0' are unreliable in principle. Once you know what the interface name will be, rename /etc/init.d/net.eth0 to /etc/init.d/net.$YOUR_INTERFACE_NAME_HERE , remove /etc/runlevels/net.eth0 and create a symlink in /etc/runlevels pointing at your new /etc/init.d/net.$WHATEVER file. Then /etc/init.d/net.$WHATEVER restart ... and things should come up, at least partially. To find anything else that might be broken: find /etc|grep eth0 find /etc -print0|xargs -0 grep eth0|egrep -v ':#' and rename 'eth0' there to your new interface name. I just went through this entire process on one of my machines...but I wiped all the files out of /etc/udev/rules.d/ and went with udev's new defaults, rather than set up my on persistent net rules for this machine. (That's a task for another day.) Frankly, the process is a PITA...and I'm going to go back to a persistent-net.rules file in the future; having to go through that entire process because of a NIC swap or an upstream behavior tweak is not something I care to have to do.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Read the news entry - add the designated option to your grub kernel line - reboot. That will be the simplest solution for now. Long term, avoid udev upgrades like the plague and test them on non-critical systems first. Strange that the reason I think us server people were OK with udev being added to system in the first place was that it said it would ensure naming of disk and net devices didn't get mixed up (eth0 would stay eth0, eth1 would stay eth1, sdb woudl remain sdb, etc between boots). and no server should need to use anything but ethX for network namesyes, I understand the theoretical point with regard to kernel versus user space namesin real practical use though, with good hardware and bios, it never is an issue and most of the linux server software to date has expected ethX for names so the benefits versus risks of this change are not worthwhile by far, at least on the server side. On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I took a closer look at /etc/udev/70-something-rules-net and /sys/class/net/eth0/ and all the ATTR (i.e., address, type, dev_id) line up fine. I did not find a name file in /sys/class/net/eth0 however, name=eth0 in etc/udev/70-something-rules-net. Ifconfig alone returns nothing. Ifconfig eth0/1 and lo returns the interface with no tx and rx traffic. And no ip address as set in conf.d/net. Please help guys. Server room is numbing.. N. On 4/6/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: In attempted to delete 70-something rules from /etc/udev/rules.d/ and it was recreated on boot with the same content. I don't think the device got renamed since ifconfig eth0 shows the correct info. Your help is greatly appreciated, N. On 4/6/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Well I looked into /sys/class/net as mentioned by Alan. In there I see eth0/ eth1/ lo/ and sit0/. Not sure what too look for in (e.g. eth0/). /sys/class/net/eth0/ifindex says 3. Other files look ok, for example address (contains mac address if that has not changed...). N. On 4/6/13, Volker Armin Hemmann volkerar...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 06.04.2013 23:19, schrieb Nick Khamis: Our net card was also build as a module Volker, did you include your net driver for example in /etc/conf.d/modules? no I removed the 70-something rules, and did pretty much nothing else. /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules just exists and is full of text. And nothing changed.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
/sbin/ip, not /etc/ip Those inet6 addresses beginning with ff02 are link-local addresses. Those are automatically configured on a link simply by the link being up. Something is failing to configure your interfaces' ipv4 settings. The culprit is almost certainly somewhere in one of these places, its lack of being in these places it part of your problem: /etc/conf.d/net /etc/init.d/net.* /etc/runlevels/*/net.* Otherwise, try those find/grep lines I offered. On 04/06/2013 10:01 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: I do not have /etc/ip however, I do have /etc/ipmaddr show: 1: lo inet6 ff02::1 2: sit0 inte6 ff02::1 3: eth0 link 33:33:00:00:00:01 inet6 ff02:1 4: eth1 link 33:33:00:00:00:01 inet6 ff02:1 Too much inte6 for my liking... Did I somehow get rid of ipv4? N. On 4/6/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/06/2013 08:53 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: I took a closer look at /etc/udev/70-something-rules-net and /sys/class/net/eth0/ and all the ATTR (i.e., address, type, dev_id) line up fine. I did not find a name file in /sys/class/net/eth0 however, name=eth0 in etc/udev/70-something-rules-net. Ifconfig alone returns nothing. Ifconfig eth0/1 and lo returns the interface with no tx and rx traffic. And no ip address as set in conf.d/net. Please help guys. Server room is numbing.. /sbin/ip link addr show That will tell you the names of your interfaces, as they currently exist. You cannot reliably use 70-persistent-net-rules to assign interfaces names which the kernel may chose. This means things like 'eth0' and 'wlan0' are unreliable in principle. Once you know what the interface name will be, rename /etc/init.d/net.eth0 to /etc/init.d/net.$YOUR_INTERFACE_NAME_HERE , remove /etc/runlevels/net.eth0 and create a symlink in /etc/runlevels pointing at your new /etc/init.d/net.$WHATEVER file. Then /etc/init.d/net.$WHATEVER restart ... and things should come up, at least partially. To find anything else that might be broken: find /etc|grep eth0 find /etc -print0|xargs -0 grep eth0|egrep -v ':#' and rename 'eth0' there to your new interface name. I just went through this entire process on one of my machines...but I wiped all the files out of /etc/udev/rules.d/ and went with udev's new defaults, rather than set up my on persistent net rules for this machine. (That's a task for another day.) Frankly, the process is a PITA...and I'm going to go back to a persistent-net.rules file in the future; having to go through that entire process because of a NIC swap or an upstream behavior tweak is not something I care to have to do. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Sorry I did mean /sbin/ip... Long day. Regardless, /sbin/ipmaddr does now show any ipv4 related material. Other than the network card driver, what module should I ensure is loaded for ipv4 related stuff. As for /etc/conf.d/net, net.eth0/eth1 these were untouched and still point to eth0 and eth1. As for /sbin/ip. I have no such command. N. On 4/6/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: /sbin/ip, not /etc/ip Those inet6 addresses beginning with ff02 are link-local addresses. Those are automatically configured on a link simply by the link being up. Something is failing to configure your interfaces' ipv4 settings. The culprit is almost certainly somewhere in one of these places, its lack of being in these places it part of your problem: /etc/conf.d/net /etc/init.d/net.* /etc/runlevels/*/net.* Otherwise, try those find/grep lines I offered. On 04/06/2013 10:01 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: I do not have /etc/ip however, I do have /etc/ipmaddr show: 1: lo inet6 ff02::1 2: sit0 inte6 ff02::1 3: eth0 link 33:33:00:00:00:01 inet6 ff02:1 4: eth1 link 33:33:00:00:00:01 inet6 ff02:1 Too much inte6 for my liking... Did I somehow get rid of ipv4? N. On 4/6/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/06/2013 08:53 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: I took a closer look at /etc/udev/70-something-rules-net and /sys/class/net/eth0/ and all the ATTR (i.e., address, type, dev_id) line up fine. I did not find a name file in /sys/class/net/eth0 however, name=eth0 in etc/udev/70-something-rules-net. Ifconfig alone returns nothing. Ifconfig eth0/1 and lo returns the interface with no tx and rx traffic. And no ip address as set in conf.d/net. Please help guys. Server room is numbing.. /sbin/ip link addr show That will tell you the names of your interfaces, as they currently exist. You cannot reliably use 70-persistent-net-rules to assign interfaces names which the kernel may chose. This means things like 'eth0' and 'wlan0' are unreliable in principle. Once you know what the interface name will be, rename /etc/init.d/net.eth0 to /etc/init.d/net.$YOUR_INTERFACE_NAME_HERE , remove /etc/runlevels/net.eth0 and create a symlink in /etc/runlevels pointing at your new /etc/init.d/net.$WHATEVER file. Then /etc/init.d/net.$WHATEVER restart ... and things should come up, at least partially. To find anything else that might be broken: find /etc|grep eth0 find /etc -print0|xargs -0 grep eth0|egrep -v ':#' and rename 'eth0' there to your new interface name. I just went through this entire process on one of my machines...but I wiped all the files out of /etc/udev/rules.d/ and went with udev's new defaults, rather than set up my on persistent net rules for this machine. (That's a task for another day.) Frankly, the process is a PITA...and I'm going to go back to a persistent-net.rules file in the future; having to go through that entire process because of a NIC swap or an upstream behavior tweak is not something I care to have to do.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
It's probably not a module issue. Are these interfaces supposed to be DHCP-configured, or are they supposed to be statically and locally configured? If they're supposed to be configured via DHCP, try dhclient $interface_name. If they're supposed to be statically configured, try using ifconfig to configure them manually. Also, ipmaddr is *not* the command you should be using. That deals strictly in multicast addresses, not unicast addresses. I presume you're trying to get your unicast addresses working properly. ifconfig -a On 04/06/2013 10:35 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: Sorry I did mean /sbin/ip... Long day. Regardless, /sbin/ipmaddr does now show any ipv4 related material. Other than the network card driver, what module should I ensure is loaded for ipv4 related stuff. As for /etc/conf.d/net, net.eth0/eth1 these were untouched and still point to eth0 and eth1. As for /sbin/ip. I have no such command. N. On 4/6/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: /sbin/ip, not /etc/ip Those inet6 addresses beginning with ff02 are link-local addresses. Those are automatically configured on a link simply by the link being up. Something is failing to configure your interfaces' ipv4 settings. The culprit is almost certainly somewhere in one of these places, its lack of being in these places it part of your problem: /etc/conf.d/net /etc/init.d/net.* /etc/runlevels/*/net.* Otherwise, try those find/grep lines I offered. On 04/06/2013 10:01 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: I do not have /etc/ip however, I do have /etc/ipmaddr show: 1: lo inet6 ff02::1 2: sit0 inte6 ff02::1 3: eth0 link 33:33:00:00:00:01 inet6 ff02:1 4: eth1 link 33:33:00:00:00:01 inet6 ff02:1 Too much inte6 for my liking... Did I somehow get rid of ipv4? N. On 4/6/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/06/2013 08:53 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: I took a closer look at /etc/udev/70-something-rules-net and /sys/class/net/eth0/ and all the ATTR (i.e., address, type, dev_id) line up fine. I did not find a name file in /sys/class/net/eth0 however, name=eth0 in etc/udev/70-something-rules-net. Ifconfig alone returns nothing. Ifconfig eth0/1 and lo returns the interface with no tx and rx traffic. And no ip address as set in conf.d/net. Please help guys. Server room is numbing.. /sbin/ip link addr show That will tell you the names of your interfaces, as they currently exist. You cannot reliably use 70-persistent-net-rules to assign interfaces names which the kernel may chose. This means things like 'eth0' and 'wlan0' are unreliable in principle. Once you know what the interface name will be, rename /etc/init.d/net.eth0 to /etc/init.d/net.$YOUR_INTERFACE_NAME_HERE , remove /etc/runlevels/net.eth0 and create a symlink in /etc/runlevels pointing at your new /etc/init.d/net.$WHATEVER file. Then /etc/init.d/net.$WHATEVER restart ... and things should come up, at least partially. To find anything else that might be broken: find /etc|grep eth0 find /etc -print0|xargs -0 grep eth0|egrep -v ':#' and rename 'eth0' there to your new interface name. I just went through this entire process on one of my machines...but I wiped all the files out of /etc/udev/rules.d/ and went with udev's new defaults, rather than set up my on persistent net rules for this machine. (That's a task for another day.) Frankly, the process is a PITA...and I'm going to go back to a persistent-net.rules file in the future; having to go through that entire process because of a NIC swap or an upstream behavior tweak is not something I care to have to do. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
ifconfig -a and ifconfig eth0 etc.. lists the interfaces correctly. When trying to start net.eth0 the error that struck me as odd was: /lib64/rc/net/wpa_supplicant.sh: line 68: _is_wireless: command not found /etc/init.d/net.eth0: line 548: _exists: command not found Sorry I can't paste stuff directly. I am literally taking phone pics and communicating through my laptop. N. On 4/6/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: It's probably not a module issue. Are these interfaces supposed to be DHCP-configured, or are they supposed to be statically and locally configured? If they're supposed to be configured via DHCP, try dhclient $interface_name. If they're supposed to be statically configured, try using ifconfig to configure them manually. Also, ipmaddr is *not* the command you should be using. That deals strictly in multicast addresses, not unicast addresses. I presume you're trying to get your unicast addresses working properly. ifconfig -a On 04/06/2013 10:35 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: Sorry I did mean /sbin/ip... Long day. Regardless, /sbin/ipmaddr does now show any ipv4 related material. Other than the network card driver, what module should I ensure is loaded for ipv4 related stuff. As for /etc/conf.d/net, net.eth0/eth1 these were untouched and still point to eth0 and eth1. As for /sbin/ip. I have no such command. N. On 4/6/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: /sbin/ip, not /etc/ip Those inet6 addresses beginning with ff02 are link-local addresses. Those are automatically configured on a link simply by the link being up. Something is failing to configure your interfaces' ipv4 settings. The culprit is almost certainly somewhere in one of these places, its lack of being in these places it part of your problem: /etc/conf.d/net /etc/init.d/net.* /etc/runlevels/*/net.* Otherwise, try those find/grep lines I offered. On 04/06/2013 10:01 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: I do not have /etc/ip however, I do have /etc/ipmaddr show: 1: lo inet6 ff02::1 2: sit0 inte6 ff02::1 3: eth0 link 33:33:00:00:00:01 inet6 ff02:1 4: eth1 link 33:33:00:00:00:01 inet6 ff02:1 Too much inte6 for my liking... Did I somehow get rid of ipv4? N. On 4/6/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/06/2013 08:53 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: I took a closer look at /etc/udev/70-something-rules-net and /sys/class/net/eth0/ and all the ATTR (i.e., address, type, dev_id) line up fine. I did not find a name file in /sys/class/net/eth0 however, name=eth0 in etc/udev/70-something-rules-net. Ifconfig alone returns nothing. Ifconfig eth0/1 and lo returns the interface with no tx and rx traffic. And no ip address as set in conf.d/net. Please help guys. Server room is numbing.. /sbin/ip link addr show That will tell you the names of your interfaces, as they currently exist. You cannot reliably use 70-persistent-net-rules to assign interfaces names which the kernel may chose. This means things like 'eth0' and 'wlan0' are unreliable in principle. Once you know what the interface name will be, rename /etc/init.d/net.eth0 to /etc/init.d/net.$YOUR_INTERFACE_NAME_HERE , remove /etc/runlevels/net.eth0 and create a symlink in /etc/runlevels pointing at your new /etc/init.d/net.$WHATEVER file. Then /etc/init.d/net.$WHATEVER restart ... and things should come up, at least partially. To find anything else that might be broken: find /etc|grep eth0 find /etc -print0|xargs -0 grep eth0|egrep -v ':#' and rename 'eth0' there to your new interface name. I just went through this entire process on one of my machines...but I wiped all the files out of /etc/udev/rules.d/ and went with udev's new defaults, rather than set up my on persistent net rules for this machine. (That's a task for another day.) Frankly, the process is a PITA...and I'm going to go back to a persistent-net.rules file in the future; having to go through that entire process because of a NIC swap or an upstream behavior tweak is not something I care to have to do.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:35:22 -0400 Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: As for /sbin/ip. I have no such command. I'd recommend installing and becoming familiar with the iproute2 package. I personally find the tools it delivers to be more intuitive than the older tools, and I *think* they are considered to obsolote some tools, such as ifconfig. -- Randy Barlow
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Can't do nothing right now, no network connection... Don't feel like burning a livecd and chrooting to jail... N. On 4/6/13, Randy Barlow ra...@electronsweatshop.com wrote: On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:35:22 -0400 Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: As for /sbin/ip. I have no such command. I'd recommend installing and becoming familiar with the iproute2 package. I personally find the tools it delivers to be more intuitive than the older tools, and I *think* they are considered to obsolote some tools, such as ifconfig. -- Randy Barlow
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
The problem is that the definition of 'correctly' has changed. I don't know if this is 'correctly' from your perspective of 'this is how I'm used to seeing it' or 'correctly' from any of the three or more ways one could use udev. The various defintions of 'correctly' may not overlap. If they're showing up as eth0/eth1...why? Is it because you disabled udev's renaming entirely via the kernel command-line parameter? Because you've done some magic in /etc/udev/rules.d/? If the former, then OK, this is a different issue. If the latter, be aware that this isn't a supported configuration! You may very well have to rename your interfaces before this is done, or let udev rename them for you. On 04/06/2013 10:55 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: ifconfig -a and ifconfig eth0 etc.. lists the interfaces correctly. When trying to start net.eth0 the error that struck me as odd was: /lib64/rc/net/wpa_supplicant.sh: line 68: _is_wireless: command not found /etc/init.d/net.eth0: line 548: _exists: command not found Sorry I can't paste stuff directly. I am literally taking phone pics and communicating through my laptop. N. On 4/6/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: It's probably not a module issue. Are these interfaces supposed to be DHCP-configured, or are they supposed to be statically and locally configured? If they're supposed to be configured via DHCP, try dhclient $interface_name. If they're supposed to be statically configured, try using ifconfig to configure them manually. Also, ipmaddr is *not* the command you should be using. That deals strictly in multicast addresses, not unicast addresses. I presume you're trying to get your unicast addresses working properly. ifconfig -a On 04/06/2013 10:35 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: Sorry I did mean /sbin/ip... Long day. Regardless, /sbin/ipmaddr does now show any ipv4 related material. Other than the network card driver, what module should I ensure is loaded for ipv4 related stuff. As for /etc/conf.d/net, net.eth0/eth1 these were untouched and still point to eth0 and eth1. As for /sbin/ip. I have no such command. N. On 4/6/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: /sbin/ip, not /etc/ip Those inet6 addresses beginning with ff02 are link-local addresses. Those are automatically configured on a link simply by the link being up. Something is failing to configure your interfaces' ipv4 settings. The culprit is almost certainly somewhere in one of these places, its lack of being in these places it part of your problem: /etc/conf.d/net /etc/init.d/net.* /etc/runlevels/*/net.* Otherwise, try those find/grep lines I offered. On 04/06/2013 10:01 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: I do not have /etc/ip however, I do have /etc/ipmaddr show: 1: lo inet6 ff02::1 2: sit0 inte6 ff02::1 3: eth0 link 33:33:00:00:00:01 inet6 ff02:1 4: eth1 link 33:33:00:00:00:01 inet6 ff02:1 Too much inte6 for my liking... Did I somehow get rid of ipv4? N. On 4/6/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/06/2013 08:53 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: I took a closer look at /etc/udev/70-something-rules-net and /sys/class/net/eth0/ and all the ATTR (i.e., address, type, dev_id) line up fine. I did not find a name file in /sys/class/net/eth0 however, name=eth0 in etc/udev/70-something-rules-net. Ifconfig alone returns nothing. Ifconfig eth0/1 and lo returns the interface with no tx and rx traffic. And no ip address as set in conf.d/net. Please help guys. Server room is numbing.. /sbin/ip link addr show That will tell you the names of your interfaces, as they currently exist. You cannot reliably use 70-persistent-net-rules to assign interfaces names which the kernel may chose. This means things like 'eth0' and 'wlan0' are unreliable in principle. Once you know what the interface name will be, rename /etc/init.d/net.eth0 to /etc/init.d/net.$YOUR_INTERFACE_NAME_HERE , remove /etc/runlevels/net.eth0 and create a symlink in /etc/runlevels pointing at your new /etc/init.d/net.$WHATEVER file. Then /etc/init.d/net.$WHATEVER restart ... and things should come up, at least partially. To find anything else that might be broken: find /etc|grep eth0 find /etc -print0|xargs -0 grep eth0|egrep -v ':#' and rename 'eth0' there to your new interface name. I just went through this entire process on one of my machines...but I wiped all the files out of /etc/udev/rules.d/ and went with udev's new defaults, rather than set up my on persistent net rules for this machine. (That's a task for another day.) Frankly, the process is a PITA...and I'm going to go back to a persistent-net.rules file in the future; having to go through that entire process because of a NIC swap or an upstream behavior tweak is not something I care to have to do. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Hello Michael, Is it because you disabled udev's renaming entirely via the kernel command-line parameter? Because you've done some magic in /etc/udev/rules.d/? I did not change 70-something contents. I deleted it and let udev regenerate it. The name in rules.d is net=eth0 and net=eth1 pointing to the correct mac address. Your help is greatly appreciated, N. On 4/6/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is that the definition of 'correctly' has changed. I don't know if this is 'correctly' from your perspective of 'this is how I'm used to seeing it' or 'correctly' from any of the three or more ways one could use udev. The various defintions of 'correctly' may not overlap. If they're showing up as eth0/eth1...why? Is it because you disabled udev's renaming entirely via the kernel command-line parameter? Because you've done some magic in /etc/udev/rules.d/? If the former, then OK, this is a different issue. If the latter, be aware that this isn't a supported configuration! You may very well have to rename your interfaces before this is done, or let udev rename them for you. On 04/06/2013 10:55 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: ifconfig -a and ifconfig eth0 etc.. lists the interfaces correctly. When trying to start net.eth0 the error that struck me as odd was: /lib64/rc/net/wpa_supplicant.sh: line 68: _is_wireless: command not found /etc/init.d/net.eth0: line 548: _exists: command not found Sorry I can't paste stuff directly. I am literally taking phone pics and communicating through my laptop. N. On 4/6/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: It's probably not a module issue. Are these interfaces supposed to be DHCP-configured, or are they supposed to be statically and locally configured? If they're supposed to be configured via DHCP, try dhclient $interface_name. If they're supposed to be statically configured, try using ifconfig to configure them manually. Also, ipmaddr is *not* the command you should be using. That deals strictly in multicast addresses, not unicast addresses. I presume you're trying to get your unicast addresses working properly. ifconfig -a On 04/06/2013 10:35 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: Sorry I did mean /sbin/ip... Long day. Regardless, /sbin/ipmaddr does now show any ipv4 related material. Other than the network card driver, what module should I ensure is loaded for ipv4 related stuff. As for /etc/conf.d/net, net.eth0/eth1 these were untouched and still point to eth0 and eth1. As for /sbin/ip. I have no such command. N. On 4/6/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: /sbin/ip, not /etc/ip Those inet6 addresses beginning with ff02 are link-local addresses. Those are automatically configured on a link simply by the link being up. Something is failing to configure your interfaces' ipv4 settings. The culprit is almost certainly somewhere in one of these places, its lack of being in these places it part of your problem: /etc/conf.d/net /etc/init.d/net.* /etc/runlevels/*/net.* Otherwise, try those find/grep lines I offered. On 04/06/2013 10:01 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: I do not have /etc/ip however, I do have /etc/ipmaddr show: 1: lo inet6 ff02::1 2: sit0 inte6 ff02::1 3: eth0 link 33:33:00:00:00:01 inet6 ff02:1 4: eth1 link 33:33:00:00:00:01 inet6 ff02:1 Too much inte6 for my liking... Did I somehow get rid of ipv4? N. On 4/6/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/06/2013 08:53 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: I took a closer look at /etc/udev/70-something-rules-net and /sys/class/net/eth0/ and all the ATTR (i.e., address, type, dev_id) line up fine. I did not find a name file in /sys/class/net/eth0 however, name=eth0 in etc/udev/70-something-rules-net. Ifconfig alone returns nothing. Ifconfig eth0/1 and lo returns the interface with no tx and rx traffic. And no ip address as set in conf.d/net. Please help guys. Server room is numbing.. /sbin/ip link addr show That will tell you the names of your interfaces, as they currently exist. You cannot reliably use 70-persistent-net-rules to assign interfaces names which the kernel may chose. This means things like 'eth0' and 'wlan0' are unreliable in principle. Once you know what the interface name will be, rename /etc/init.d/net.eth0 to /etc/init.d/net.$YOUR_INTERFACE_NAME_HERE , remove /etc/runlevels/net.eth0 and create a symlink in /etc/runlevels pointing at your new /etc/init.d/net.$WHATEVER file. Then /etc/init.d/net.$WHATEVER restart ... and things should come up, at least partially. To find anything else that might be broken: find /etc|grep eth0 find /etc -print0|xargs -0 grep eth0|egrep -v ':#' and rename 'eth0' there to your new interface name. I just went through this entire process on one of my machines...but I wiped all the files out of /etc/udev/rules.d/ and went with udev's new defaults, rather than set up my on persistent net rules for this machine. (That's a task for
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 04/06/2013 11:19 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: Hello Michael, Is it because you disabled udev's renaming entirely via the kernel command-line parameter? Because you've done some magic in /etc/udev/rules.d/? I did not change 70-something contents. I deleted it and let udev regenerate it. The name in rules.d is net=eth0 and net=eth1 pointing to the correct mac address. Your help is greatly appreciated, Just an FYI...when I removed them, udev did not regenerate them. You might try removing them again (or moving them to ~root/ for safekeeping), rebooting, and seeing what happens. That udev regenerated them for you is very, very weird. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
