e adequately explained by
stupidity"
- Hanlon's Razor
---- Original Message
Subject: Re: Anyone lose network connectivity during upgrade to SLES11
SP1
From: Marcy Cortes
Date: Thu, February 09, 2012 5:12 pm
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Ah, you are right! I must have looked at
: Re: [LINUX-390] Anyone lose network connectivity during upgrade to
SLES11 SP1
Marcy,
Thanks for the info.
It appears that on SLES11SP1 the name of the file changed to
70-persistent-net.rules
Thanks for giving the information on where the rules files are.
Ron
Of Tobias Doerkes
[tdoer...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:03 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Anyone lose network connectivity during upgrade to SLES11 SP1
Hi,
what about routing? Is it possible that the default route does point to an
inactive interface?
Kind
Cortes
[marcy.d.cor...@wellsfargo.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 9:36 AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Anyone lose network connectivity during upgrade to SLES11 SP1
So you can modify /etc/udev/rules.d/30-net_persistent_names.rules
For the servers we have with more than 1 interface
connectivity during upgrade to SLES11 SP1
>>> On 2/3/2012 at 10:13 AM, Ron Foster at Baldor-IS wrote:
> 3. You may ask why we used qeth-bus-ccw-0.0.0700 instead of the short
> interface name eth0. The reason why is that in our experience, the short
> interface names
> have t
>>> On 2/3/2012 at 10:13 AM, Ron Foster at Baldor-IS
>>> wrote:
> 3. You may ask why we used qeth-bus-ccw-0.0.0700 instead of the short
> interface name eth0. The reason why is that in our experience, the short
> interface names
> have this habit of changing. We would come in some Saturday n
390 Port [mailto:LINUX-390@vm.marist.edu] On Behalf Of Ron
Foster at Baldor-IS
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 7:13 AM
To: LINUX-390@vm.marist.edu
Subject: Re: [LINUX-390] Anyone lose network connectivity during upgrade to
SLES11 SP1
Tobias,
I will have to further testing, but I think you have co
AM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Anyone lose network connectivity during upgrade to SLES11 SP1
Hi,
what about routing? Is it possible that the default route does point to an
inactive interface?
Kind regards,
Tobias.
PS: Sorry i forgot the subject
Ron,
the MAC-address for a VSWITCH interface is defined by z/VM. Can you
check somehow if this MAC-address changes during upgrade - for instance
in z/VM CP with command CP Q VSWITCH DETAILS? If yes, the problem seems
to be related to Novell bugzilla 617373.
Kind regards, Ursula Braun, IBM Germany
Hi,
what about routing? Is it possible that the default route does point to an
inactive interface?
Kind regards,
Tobias.
PS: Sorry i forgot the subject.
--
For LINUX-390 subscribe / si
No. The ping attempt was not made from the same subnet. We will try
this on the next attempt.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 2, 2012, at 4:13 PM, "Mark Post" wrote:
On 2/2/2012 at 04:14 PM, Ron Foster at Baldor-IS >>> > wrote:
>> My cohort said that in his latest try, he removed all the extr
>>> On 2/2/2012 at 04:14 PM, Ron Foster at Baldor-IS
>>> wrote:
> My cohort said that in his latest try, he removed all the extraneous
> interfaces, and had the same result. He said he tried to ping it and did not
> get a response.
My question, though, was the ping attempt made from the same
This is a layer 3 vswitch.
From: Linux on 390 Port [LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU] On Behalf Of Mark Post
[mp...@novell.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:41 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Anyone lose network connectivity during upgrade to
]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:31 PM
To: LINUX-390@VM.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Re: Anyone lose network connectivity during upgrade to SLES11 SP1
>>> On 2/2/2012 at 02:34 PM, Ron Foster at Baldor-IS wrote:
> We have also made an update run where we removed the interfaces from the
&g
>>> On 2/2/2012 at 02:34 PM, Ron Foster at Baldor-IS
>>> wrote:
> We have also made an update run where we removed the interfaces from the
> guest before we started. The results were the same. We try to connect
> to 10.80.200.126
> and do not get a response.
> Any ideas?
Also, is this a Layer
>>> On 2/2/2012 at 02:34 PM, Ron Foster at Baldor-IS
>>> wrote:
> We have also made an update run where we removed the interfaces from the
> guest before we started. The results were the same. We try to connect
> to 10.80.200.126
> and do not get a response.
> Any ideas?
When you do this with
Hello,
We are in the midst of performing our first upgrade from SLES10 SP4 to
SLES11 SP1 and are having network connection issues.
We are attempting to upgrade our Linux "sandbox" system that runs under
z/VM. We ipl from the card reader and perform the first part of the
upgrade just fine. After
17 matches
Mail list logo
