On 12/14/2015 03:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 12:31:45PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The situation is not at all the same; there is no clear expectation
> that networkd will replace NetworkManager, indeed AFAIK it's been
> explicitly stated that it won't, because it's not desirable for it to
> cover all the complex configurations NM supports.
One development (mostly) since we started talking about this is that NM
is now much more modular, and has a "configure and go away" mode (the
lack of which was the main reason for not using it in the cloud image
in the first place). It also can use the same lightweight DHCP library
that systemd does, which in either case is an advantage over ye olde
memory-hungry reference implementation as used by the initscripts
I'm not saying it's the automatic winner over systemd-networkd, but all
that should be taken into consideration.
Another thing to consider is that we currently use the same Atomic
ostree for cloud and bare metal. Does that fact change our opinion on
using networkd vs NM? Does networkd cover all the use cases that are
needed for Atomic on bare metal? Should we continue to deliver it like
that in the future?
All things to ponder,