Why was it necessary to have discussions internally when they could have been open by default?
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Bryan Quigley <[email protected]> wrote: > We've had a lot of internal Canonical discussions about our networking story > and before going to a UDS session [1] it was suggested to post to > ubuntu-devel. > > *Network Restart* > I'd like to start by asking each of you what you think is the correct way to > restart networking on Ubuntu server? Feel free to write it down and include > it in any replies :). > > It turns out our documentation has been wrong and the following are not > correct and more importantly don't work consistently over 10.04/12.04/14.04 > [2]: > sudo /etc/init.d/networking restart > sudo restart networking > > The correct way I've been told is to use the ifupdown scripts. It's > important to note that this is different on the desktop due to > network-manager. > > I feel we need to publicly discuss if we really want the ifupdown scripts to > be the only supported way to manage/restart networking. We've been > communicating the opposite for quite some time now.. > > Related question: > Do we not support giving users the ability to restart networking equivalent > to rebooting the system? (Upstart is used when booting, not when manually > doing the ifupdown scripts). > > > *More complicated network setups* > There are many bugs in regards to bonds/vlans/bridging and other more > complex networking setups. It appears like it might be a limitation to how > ifupdown is designed. > > We have had cases where the MTU needs to be set using a pre-up or post-up > option in the interfaces file instead of a plain MTU line. > Bond interfaces can cause significant pausing in boot/network restart > The ifupdown script doesn't actually work on bonded interfaces [3] > > race condition updating statefile "sometimes networking interfaces won't > come up" - was fixed [4]- > > We are seeing many more of cases involving complicated networking setups and > with more OpenStack deployments this is going to become more of the norm. > > My understanding is that ifupdown was not designed to handle a parallel boot > process like Upstart or systemd. I'm guessing there are a lot more bugs > lurking due to that, aside from some other issues with the codebase [5]. > > *Future Releases* > NetworkManager everywhere? systemd-networkd? > > Thanks for discussing, > Bryan > > > [1] > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/servercloud-1403-networking > [2] If you want to see where those actually work see my document here: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OBN3efJ1LmA0-0DzD3K0eUkIuQdscxLQ-QO1yi3bHeM/edit > [3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ifenslave-2.6/+bug/1254120 > [4] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ifupdown/+bug/1160490 > [5] > http://pureperl.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-debian-ifupdown-package-and.html > > -- > Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss > -- Benjamin Kerensa http://benjaminkerensa.com "I am what I am because of who we all are" - Ubuntu -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
