Problem setting up wired networking

Fri Nov 14 17:17:11 UTC 2008

On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 00:14 -0600, Jerry Amundson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-11-13 at 22:28 -0600, Jerry Amundson wrote:
> >> I propose that this 82 message thread covers those items.
> >> Yet, the insiders are telling everyone else that all is right in nm world.
> >>
> >> Whatever. For the record, I see the potential,  and it's good, but
> >> thus far this thread is the voice of the masses falling of deaf ears,
> >> and that's bad.
> >
> > Can you give me actual examples of where I said everything was all
> > right?  Can you give me examples where the valid complaints of the users
> > are falling on my deaf ears?  Can you give me examples of where I'm not
> > being helpful to those trying to use NetworkManager, or providing
> > information to those who have stopped using it due to past experiences?
> 
> Gladly. Hope you take criticism well. I know I have to in my job...
> 
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:43 +0000, Tony Molloy wrote:
> >> For a wired connection run the network service and disable the
> >> NetworkManager
> >> service.
> >
> > This is just bad advice.
> 
> When, in fact, this is exactly what has been needed at times for a
> functional network, states plainly, "I'm not listening".

Not so.  The original poster just needed one static wired interface, and
one wireless dynamic interface.  This type of situation is very easy to
accomplish with NetworkManager, and over time would be easier to manage
rather than the Network service, particularly because the wireless
interface was involved.

> 
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:18 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 12:36 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
> >> So NetworkManager now knows how to set the hostname properly?
> >
> > Now that all depends on your definition of properly.  There are cases
> > where changing the hostname of a running system will break other running
> > software.  It's not a perfect world, neither option is that great.
> 
> That's not helpful. Change the f(*&ing hostname if that's what we've
> asked it to do.

It's not helpful to point out that the desired action you want actually
has in the past and may still break certain scenarios?  You can't accept
that just because it works in your use case that it doesn't work in
every use case?  I also said it's not a good situation, and what likely
needs to happen is some (god I hate this) extra box to twiddle if you
want to keep your hostname changing depending on what dns says for you.
That way for those that it works they can check it, but for those that
it doesn't, it's really really non-obvious why things just start
failing.  It took a lot of deep thinking to realize that changing the
hostname on a running session had dire results.

> 
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 19:02 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
> >> Jesse, system-config-network worries me.  The hardware tab tells me that my
> >> wired connection, Realtek 8101E, is eth1, but the devices tab says that it is
> >> eth0.  I see there is a network script for ifcfg-eth0, but not eth1, so I
> >> guess that's the correct (as well as logical) one.
> >>
> >> Unless you have some ideas on something that I can manually edit to deal with
> >> this, I guess I need to file a bug.
> >
> > Forgive me, but what is the desired outcome of your configuration?
> > Hopefully you can achieve that without having to invoke
> > system-config-network.
> 
> In other words, everything is OK here in nm world. You must be trying
> some bizarre corner case you silly goose.

That's really some odd reading there.  I was simply asking the original
poster to re-outline what they wished to accomplish.  I hoped that
NetworkManager would cover it, and indeed NetworkManager is supposed to
cover her desired configuration.  I was completely willing to admit that
if if she needed something that wasn't possible with NetworkManager that
she shouldn't use it.  I really think you're reading my words with a
very odd slant and with as much vindictive as you can possibly muster.

> 
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 17:18 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
> >> Point taken. However, I have been setting hostnames via DHCP for years
> >> (both Fedora and CentOS on over 300 machines), and have never had anything
> >> break because of it (not one single breakage of any kind).
> >
> > While on the other hand, I would constantly have X break, no new windows
> > could launch, audio break, not able to re-connect to the daemon, so on
> > and so forth.  It's an imperfect system.
> 
> In other words, we didn't design it for that, so we don't expect it to
> work, you're doing something wrong.

Again you're putting words in my mouth.  I was explaining what broke
when hostnames changed.  I also said it's an imperfect system in that
the underlying software just wasn't ready to accept that kind of dynamic
changes.  Should it be fixed?  Sure.  Is it fixed already?  I don't
know, but it certainly wasn't a priority of the upstreams involved.
Their fix was "don't do that".

> 
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 20:52 +0000, Anne Wilson wrote:
> >> Jesse, I don't care which route we go - NM is fine if we can persuade it to
> >> work.
> >>
> >> All I want is a fixed address when on my home LAN - and I'll accept reserved
> >> IP from my router's dhcp if that's easiest - and straight dhcp for the wifi,
> >> since that will be used at various locations.
> >>
> >> Since trying to get the cabled connection working properly (and it's working
> >> now, but not on my chosen IP address) I have lost the wifi altogether, so if
> >> you can advise me how to start from scratch that would probably be best.
> >
> > Well, I'd re-edit your ifcfg-eth* files and set them all back to
> > NM_CONTROLLED=yes.  Also, I'd question why you have an eth1 file, and
> 
> You're not questioning, you're implying - implying that the user has
> done something wrong, when, in all likelihood. it's just THE WAY NM
> HAS SET IT UP.

Again, reading way more into my words than ever intended.

> 
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 23:41 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> >>
> >> > Then in NetworkManager you can right click the panel and edit
> >> > connections.  There you should be able to define a configuration for
> >> > System eth0 complete with static addressing.  This in theory should
> >> > allow it to come up at boot time with this static address and be fine.
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't. The static configuration gets lost each time.
> >
> > Yah that sounds like a bug.  I'll run through this scenario on rawhide
> > tomorrow and verify that it's working as expected.
> 
> Did you? Does it? bz number?

I did attempt it.  I ran into one bug while trying to make the setting
apply to the system and I filed the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471308

I still need to complete the tests, but I got caught up in a minor
emergency related to the release of F10.  I'll report more results today
(provided no other fires crop up).

> 
> I was wrong - this thread is closer to 100 messages than 82.
> I've been involved in open source projects long enough not to expect
> insiders to admit they're wrong, but I should think you would at least
> be open minded.

I honestly think you're reading what I say in the worst possible way.
That's one of the follies of email, you can't detect tone or attitude,
so it's easy to misinterpret.  I am deeply sorry if what I said came
across as the way you seem to have read it.  It was not my intention.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20081114/9dd8dcae/attachment.bin 