How can I completly remove all remnants of an old eth1 Everytime I go to add a new nic it wants to call it eth1
I will be replacing the old nic with ano identical chipped card, which it wants to call eth1
I would prefer eth0
F17 using system-config-network I have through s-c-n removed all hardware nic, also removeed ~/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth* Keeps coming back,
Where else do I look.
Am 13.10.2012 13:46, schrieb Frank Murphy:
How can I completly remove all remnants of an old eth1 Everytime I go to add a new nic it wants to call it eth1
I will be replacing the old nic with ano identical chipped card, which it wants to call eth1
I would prefer eth0
F17 using system-config-network I have through s-c-n removed all hardware nic, also removeed ~/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth* Keeps coming back
Where else do I look
/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules this is the only place which matters for manual NIC-naming and ifcfg_eth* scripts should NOT contain MAC-addresses to leave the udev-rule the only point to assign
you need to reboot or restat udev
cat /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules # PCI device 0x8086:0x1502 (e1000e) SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="3c:d9:2c:65:95:9f", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"
# PCI device 0x8086:0x10d3 (e1000e) SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="00:1b:21:a6:91:e4", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth1"
# PCI device 0x168c:0x0024 (ath9k) SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="fc:75:12:5e:cf:e5", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="wlan*", NAME="wlan0"
On 13/10/12 12:53, Reindl Harald wrote:
cat /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules # PCI device 0x8086:0x1502 (e1000e) SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="3c:d9:2c:65:95:9f", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"
Where do I find some of this info to put in the udev rule. It's not being auto-generated.
using lshw I get:
*-network:0 description: Ethernet interface product: RTL-8169 Gigabit Ethernet vendor: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. physical id: 0 bus info: pci@0000:05:00.0 logical name: rename2 version: 10 serial: 00:22:3f:f1:f2:d8 size: 1Gbit/s capacity: 1Gbit/s width: 32 bits clock: 66MHz capabilities: pm bus_master cap_list rom ethernet physical tp mii 10bt 10bt-fd 100bt 100bt-fd 1000bt 1000bt-fd autonegotiation configuration: autonegotiation=on broadcast=yes driver=r8169 driverversion=2.3LK-NAPI duplex=full ip=192.168.0.6 latency=64 link=yes maxlatency=64 mingnt=32 multicast=yes port=MII speed=1Gbit/s resources: irq:16 ioport:e800(size=256) memory:febffc00-febffcff memory:febc0000-febdffff *-network:1 description: Ethernet interface product: RTL-8169 Gigabit Ethernet vendor: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. physical id: 1 bus info: pci@0000:05:01.0 logical name: eth1 version: 10 serial: 64:70:02:00:43:c2 size: 1Gbit/s capacity: 1Gbit/s width: 32 bits clock: 66MHz capabilities: pm bus_master cap_list rom ethernet physical tp mii 10bt 10bt-fd 100bt 100bt-fd 1000bt 1000bt-fd autonegotiation configuration: autonegotiation=on broadcast=yes driver=r8169 driverversion=2.3LK-NAPI duplex=full ip=192.168.0.149 latency=64 link=yes maxlatency=64 mingnt=32 multicast=yes port=MII speed=1Gbit/s resources: irq:17 ioport:e400(size=256) memory:febff800-febff8ff memory:feba0000-febbffff
Am 13.10.2012 14:56, schrieb Frank Murphy:
On 13/10/12 12:53, Reindl Harald wrote:
cat /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules # PCI device 0x8086:0x1502 (e1000e) SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="3c:d9:2c:65:95:9f", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"
Where do I find some of this info to put in the udev rule. It's not being auto-generated.
"ifconfig --a" will show you every interface with the MAC address only the MAC and NAME has to be changed in teh udev-rule
Check in /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules
Bill
On 10/13/2012 7:46 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
How can I completly remove all remnants of an old eth1 Everytime I go to add a new nic it wants to call it eth1
I will be replacing the old nic with ano identical chipped card, which it wants to call eth1
I would prefer eth0
F17 using system-config-network I have through s-c-n removed all hardware nic, also removeed ~/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth* Keeps coming back,
Where else do I look.
On 10/13/2012 05:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.10.2012 13:46, schrieb Frank Murphy:
How can I completly remove all remnants of an old eth1 Everytime I go to add a new nic it wants to call it eth1
I will be replacing the old nic with ano identical chipped card, which it wants to call eth1
I would prefer eth0
F17 using system-config-network I have through s-c-n removed all hardware nic, also removeed ~/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth* Keeps coming back
Where else do I look
/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules this is the only place which matters for manual NIC-naming and ifcfg_eth* scripts should NOT contain MAC-addresses to leave the udev-rule the only point to assign
you need to reboot or restat udev
cat /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules # PCI device 0x8086:0x1502 (e1000e) SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="3c:d9:2c:65:95:9f", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"
# PCI device 0x8086:0x10d3 (e1000e) SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="00:1b:21:a6:91:e4", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth1"
# PCI device 0x168c:0x0024 (ath9k) SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="fc:75:12:5e:cf:e5", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="wlan*", NAME="wlan0"
On my system, log in var log messages shows /var/log/messages-20120930:Sep 26 08:43:22 localhost kernel: [ 5.935732] eth0: SiS 900 PCI Fast Ethernet at 0xd800, IRQ 19, 00:03:0d:15:2b:9e /var/log/messages-20121007:Oct 4 18:18:39 localhost system-config-network[27851]: rm //etc/sysconfig/networking/profiles/default/ifcfg-eth0
But in /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules I have SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="00:03:0d:13:0b:0e", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"
So, ifconfig returns no info about eth0, or any eth# device.
FIRST: if list-owners decide to moderate DO IT
it makes NO SENSE to release posts after many days while a thread has passed many steps
Am 15.10.2012 19:02, schrieb JD:
On my system, log in var log messages shows /var/log/messages-20120930:Sep 26 08:43:22 localhost kernel: [ 5.935732] eth0: SiS 900 PCI Fast Ethernet at 0xd800, IRQ 19, 00:03:0d:15:2b:9e /var/log/messages-20121007:Oct 4 18:18:39 localhost system-config-network[27851]: rm //etc/sysconfig/networking/profiles/default/ifcfg-eth0
But in /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules I have SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="00:03:0d:13:0b:0e", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"
So, ifconfig returns no info about eth0, or any eth# device
ifconfig -a the "-a" is the key to see ALL interfaces
On 15.10.2012, Reindl Harald wrote:
FIRST: if list-owners decide to moderate DO IT
it makes NO SENSE to release posts after many days while a thread has passed many steps
As far as I know, this list isn't moderated..
On 10/15/2012 1:02 PM, JD wrote:
On 10/13/2012 05:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 13.10.2012 13:46, schrieb Frank Murphy:
How can I completly remove all remnants of an old eth1 Everytime I go to add a new nic it wants to call it eth1
I will be replacing the old nic with ano identical chipped card, which it wants to call eth1
I would prefer eth0
F17 using system-config-network I have through s-c-n removed all hardware nic, also removeed ~/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth* Keeps coming back
Where else do I look
/etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules this is the only place which matters for manual NIC-naming and ifcfg_eth* scripts should NOT contain MAC-addresses to leave the udev-rule the only point to assign
you need to reboot or restat udev
cat /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules # PCI device 0x8086:0x1502 (e1000e) SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="3c:d9:2c:65:95:9f", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"
# PCI device 0x8086:0x10d3 (e1000e) SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="00:1b:21:a6:91:e4", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth1"
# PCI device 0x168c:0x0024 (ath9k) SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="fc:75:12:5e:cf:e5", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="wlan*", NAME="wlan0"
On my system, log in var log messages shows /var/log/messages-20120930:Sep 26 08:43:22 localhost kernel: [ 5.935732] eth0: SiS 900 PCI Fast Ethernet at 0xd800, IRQ 19, 00:03:0d:15:2b:9e /var/log/messages-20121007:Oct 4 18:18:39 localhost system-config-network[27851]: rm //etc/sysconfig/networking/profiles/default/ifcfg-eth0
But in /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules I have SUBSYSTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", DRIVERS=="?*", ATTR{address}=="00:03:0d:13:0b:0e", ATTR{dev_id}=="0x0", ATTR{type}=="1", KERNEL=="eth*", NAME="eth0"
So, ifconfig returns no info about eth0, or any eth# device.
In your log file, the MAC address is 00:03:0d:15:2b:9e. The udev rule looks for MAC address 00:03:0d:13:0b:0e. No match, no action.
Bill
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 08:24:27PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 15.10.2012, Reindl Harald wrote:
FIRST: if list-owners decide to moderate DO IT
it makes NO SENSE to release posts after many days while a thread has passed many steps
As far as I know, this list isn't moderated..
In general it's not. But from time to time the list owners have moderated specific subscribers. In this particular case, several moderators were unavailable and the moderation queue got backed up but things should be flowing again now.
Am 15.10.2012 22:20, schrieb Paul W. Frields:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 08:24:27PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 15.10.2012, Reindl Harald wrote:
FIRST: if list-owners decide to moderate DO IT
it makes NO SENSE to release posts after many days while a thread has passed many steps
As far as I know, this list isn't moderated..
In general it's not. But from time to time the list owners have moderated specific subscribers. In this particular case, several moderators were unavailable and the moderation queue got backed up but things should be flowing again now
thank you for your feedback
for some weeks i was really furstrated because on one hand i hate it if peaople use "reply all" on lists and on the other hand i was forced to do exactly this to get useful r replies in a acceptable timely manner to the RCPT
if a thread is going on and your replies are coming partly more than a week later followed by other replies while the thread went forward it makes it useless to post at all
on the users-list you even get no system response and posting in a blacklist - others lists are responsing taht your message awaits moderation
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:25:02PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 15.10.2012 22:20, schrieb Paul W. Frields:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 08:24:27PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 15.10.2012, Reindl Harald wrote:
FIRST: if list-owners decide to moderate DO IT
it makes NO SENSE to release posts after many days while a thread has passed many steps
As far as I know, this list isn't moderated..
In general it's not. But from time to time the list owners have moderated specific subscribers. In this particular case, several moderators were unavailable and the moderation queue got backed up but things should be flowing again now
thank you for your feedback
for some weeks i was really furstrated because on one hand i hate it if peaople use "reply all" on lists and on the other hand i was forced to do exactly this to get useful r replies in a acceptable timely manner to the RCPT
if a thread is going on and your replies are coming partly more than a week later followed by other replies while the thread went forward it makes it useless to post at all
on the users-list you even get no system response and posting in a blacklist - others lists are responsing taht your message awaits moderation
On behalf of the list owners, sorry for the delay in addressing the queue. It does make productive list discussion harder when that doesn't happen. We try to do it in a timely way, but obviously didn't in this case.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
FIRST: if list-owners decide to moderate DO IT
it makes NO SENSE to release posts after many days while a thread has passed many steps
As one of the list moderators, I recently returned from vacation to find that many messages piled up for moderation in my absence. (There are a handful of list moderators, so the absence of one of us shouldn't have had that big of an impact.) I sent an email to the other moderators to please help go through the list and clear out the moderation queue. I know that yesterday I deleted at least a dozen messages that were old. Again, I'm sorry there was a delay in the moderation.
-- Jared Smith
On 10/16/2012 7:38 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
FIRST: if list-owners decide to moderate DO IT
it makes NO SENSE to release posts after many days while a thread has passed many steps
As one of the list moderators, I recently returned from vacation to find that many messages piled up for moderation in my absence. (There are a handful of list moderators, so the absence of one of us shouldn't have had that big of an impact.) I sent an email to the other moderators to please help go through the list and clear out the moderation queue. I know that yesterday I deleted at least a dozen messages that were old. Again, I'm sorry there was a delay in the moderation.
-- Jared Smith
My 2 cents.
I find it odd that moderators feel the need to have to apologize to someone that complains about being moderated that violated the rules on a fairly open list badly enough to be moderated.
On 10/16/2012 07:52 AM, David wrote:
I find it odd that moderators feel the need to have to apologize to someone that complains about being moderated that violated the rules on a fairly open list badly enough to be moderated.
Actually, they were apologizing to the entire list because they weren't doing their job in a prompt and timely manner.
On 10/16/2012 1:43 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 10/16/2012 07:52 AM, David wrote:
I find it odd that moderators feel the need to have to apologize to someone that complains about being moderated that violated the rules on a fairly open list badly enough to be moderated.
Actually, they were apologizing to the entire list because they weren't doing their job in a prompt and timely manner.
Really? I did not need one.
On 10/17/2012 05:27 AM, David wrote:
On 10/16/2012 1:43 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 10/16/2012 07:52 AM, David wrote:
I find it odd that moderators feel the need to have to apologize to someone that complains about being moderated that violated the rules on a fairly open list badly enough to be moderated.
Actually, they were apologizing to the entire list because they weren't doing their job in a prompt and timely manner.
Really? I did not need one.
I think everyone understands that people are very busy. To not respond in a timely manner is not so important. It's an open list, if and when complaints arise, that's probably enough time too act.
Thanks Moderators for an outstanding job. roger
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Roger arelem@bigpond.com wrote:
On 10/17/2012 05:27 AM, David wrote:
On 10/16/2012 1:43 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 10/16/2012 07:52 AM, David wrote:
I find it odd that moderators feel the need to have to apologize to someone that complains about being moderated that violated the rules on a fairly open list badly enough to be moderated.
Actually, they were apologizing to the entire list because they weren't doing their job in a prompt and timely manner.
Really? I did not need one.
I think everyone understands that people are very busy. To not respond in a timely manner is not so important. It's an open list, if and when complaints arise, that's probably enough time too act.
Thanks Moderators for an outstanding job. roger
I agree
Thanks Moderators for a GREAT job..
Marvin
On 10/16/2012 07:52 AM, David wrote:
I find it odd that moderators feel the need to have to apologize to someone that complains about being moderated that violated the rules on a fairly open list badly enough to be moderated.
On 10/16/2012 1:43 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
Actually, they were apologizing to the entire list because they weren't doing their job in a prompt and timely manner.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:27 PM, David dgboles@gmail.com wrote:
Really? I did not need one.
I did not *need* one, but have to agree with Reindl here. If moderators decide to moderate someone, they should moderate well and keep messages arriving timely. That does not mean I think they did this on purpose, far from it.
Yet, it happened, and so caused some "damage" (note the word is quoted, do not take it literal, please) to the readers of this list. In this case not having timely answers from Reindl.
So yes, an apology is not out of place. As a compliment for the moderators: usually we do not notice moderation, which shows they do a good job.
Still when one (or, in this case, a group) makes a mistake, an apology is the polite thing to do.
-
Andre Speelmans -
Bill Shirley -
David -
Frank Murphy -
Heinz Diehl -
Jared K. Smith -
JD -
Joe Zeff -
Marvin Kosmal -
Paul W. Frields -
Reindl Harald -
Roger