On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 22:26:52 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:

> > udev has broken nothing, it is avoiding the breakage caused by a
> > fundamentally flawed renaming procedure. Or does mdev have some magic
> > for for renaming eth0 to eth1 while eth1 already exists?
> >  
> 
> "Broken" or not is totally depending on the eye of the beholder.
> 
> Server SysAdmins *sometimes* need to reboot, and if the name suddenly
> changes, that's hell on earth for us.
> 
> AFAICT, prior to udev-200, once an interface got assigned an ethX
> moniker, it just won't change name unless there's a hardware change. At
> least, that's my experience so far.

But that isn't guaranteed. Basically, renaming within the eth namespace
has always had the potential for breakage, whether it worked for you or
not. The fact that for 99% of the time it didn't break doesn't remove
that potential, and a server with multiple NICs is more likely to be
affected than a laptop.

Also, if you believe the breakage won't apply to you, there is nothing to
stop you continuing with your old rules, in fact that is exactly what
udev does if you don't remove them yourself.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Many husbands go broke on the money their wives save on sales.