See attached patch for making atomic host have eth0 be the interface by default:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 01:25 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
See attached patch for making atomic host have eth0 be the interface by default:
So this is something like the addition of dracut-network by default for PXE-to-Live got us networking in the initramfs, which in turn broke the ifnames change?
Your link was only talking about Vagrant, but this change will affect *all* uses of the cloud image, such as EC2, OpenStack, etc.
Now, we were clearly *intending* to do this for a long time, going back to what (I believe) mattdm did with the original Fedora Cloud image.
That said, while clearly a number of people just do cloud instances with one NIC and hence predictable = eth0 is fine, it's really quite valid to use multiple NICs in any kind of nontrivial situation. And once one does that, the rationale for PIN becomes apparent.
I admit I'm only a light EC2 user, so I can't comment on this patch from that angle. From an OpenStack (specifically KVM) point of view, one really important thing to note is that recently virtio-net enumeration order was declared stable: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/54683f0f9b97a8f88aaf4fbb45b4d72905... Which definitely affects upgrades.
It's worth noting that *currently* on KVM on Fedora 23 one gets PIN due to that change, and this would revert it.
I'd like to explore this vagrant issue more to understand how PIN is breaking it.
On 11/23/2015 09:37 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015, at 01:25 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >> See attached patch for making atomic host have eth0 be the
interface by >> default: > > So this is something like the addition of dracut-network by default > for PXE-to-Live got us networking in the initramfs, which in turn > broke the ifnames change?
I'm not sure what broke it. I'd love to know but don't have time to look at it further.
Your link was only talking about Vagrant, but this change will >
affect *all* uses of the cloud image, such as EC2, OpenStack, > etc.
Right, this would affect them all. As you mention below we were intending for this ("eth0") to be the case for a long time so I figured we should fix it. You are right that this would be a change over how we released F23 atomic and it does have implications for other environments.
Hopefuly testing would identify any issues but you never know what could crop up.
Now, we were clearly *intending* to do this for a long > time, going
back to what (I believe) mattdm did with > the original Fedora Cloud image. > > That said, while clearly a number of people just do cloud > instances with one NIC and hence predictable = eth0 is fine, > it's really quite valid to use multiple NICs in any kind of nontrivial > situation. And once one does that, the rationale > for PIN becomes apparent. > > I admit I'm only a light EC2 user, so I can't comment on > this patch from that angle. From an OpenStack (specifically > KVM) point of view, one really important thing to note is > that recently virtio-net enumeration order was declared stable: > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/54683f0f9b97a8f88aaf4fbb45b4d72905...
Which definitely affects upgrades. > > It's worth noting that
*currently* on KVM on Fedora 23 one gets PIN due > to that change, and this would revert it. > > I'd like to explore this vagrant issue more to understand how PIN > is breaking it.
Please do! I'd like other eyes looking at this. I took the initiative but would love for someone to make it better.
Dusty
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015, at 10:35 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
Right, this would affect them all. As you mention below we were
intending for this ("eth0") to be the case for a long time so I
figured we should fix it. You are right that this would be a change
over how we released F23 atomic and it does have implications for
other environments.
Based on that, my instinct here is to only do this change for the Vagrant box. WDYT?
On 12/04/2015 02:16 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015, at 10:35 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >> >> >> Right, this would affect them all. As you mention below we
were >> intending for this ("eth0") to be the case for a long time so I
figured we should fix it. You are right that this would be a change over how we released F23 atomic and it does have implications for >>
other environments. > > Based on that, my instinct here is to only do this change for > the Vagrant box. WDYT?
Ok can you merge the attached patch then?
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 12/04/2015 02:16 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015, at 10:35 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
Right, this would affect them all. As you mention below we were intending for this ("eth0") to be the case for a long time so I figured we should fix it. You are right that this would be a change over how we released F23 atomic and it does have implications for other environments.
Based on that, my instinct here is to only do this change for the Vagrant box. WDYT?
Ok can you merge the attached patch then?
Done, thank you!
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/spin-kickstarts.git/commit/?id=80eeba2146f...
On 09/12/15, Colin Walters wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 12/04/2015 02:16 PM, Colin Walters wrote:On Mon, Nov 23, 2015, at 10:35 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
Right, this would affect them all. As you mention below we were intending for this ("eth0") to be the case for a long time so I figured we should fix it. You are right that this would be a change over how we released F23 atomic and it does have implications for other environments.
Based on that, my instinct here is to only do this change for the Vagrant box. WDYT?
Ok can you merge the attached patch then?Done, thank you!
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/spin-kickstarts.git/commit/?id=80eeba2146f...
Means we have to wait for the next nightly build to see if it passes or not. Thanks a lot for the work :)
Kushal
On 09/12/15, Colin Walters wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 12/04/2015 02:16 PM, Colin Walters wrote:On Mon, Nov 23, 2015, at 10:35 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
Right, this would affect them all. As you mention below we were intending for this ("eth0") to be the case for a long time so I figured we should fix it. You are right that this would be a change over how we released F23 atomic and it does have implications for other environments.
Based on that, my instinct here is to only do this change for the Vagrant box. WDYT?
Ok can you merge the attached patch then?Done, thank you!
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/spin-kickstarts.git/commit/?id=80eeba2146f...
Same failure [1] in today's tests.
[1] https://apps.fedoraproject.org/autocloud/jobs/828/output
Kushal
On 12/09/2015 01:45 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
On Wed, Dec 9, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 12/04/2015 02:16 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015, at 10:35 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >> >> >> Right, this would affect them all. As you mention below we
were >> intending for this ("eth0") to be the case for a long time so I >> figured we should fix it. You are right that this would be a change >> over how we released F23 atomic and it does have implications for >> other environments. > > Based on that, my instinct here is to only do this change for > the Vagrant box. WDYT? Ok can you merge the attached patch then?
Done, thank you! https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/spin-kickstarts.git/commit/?id=80eeba2146f...
This commit is against master.. Can you apply the change to the f23 branch?
Dusty
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
This commit is against master.. Can you apply the change to the f23 branch?
Done: https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/spin-kickstarts.git/commit/?h=f23
On 12/10/2015 11:11 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
This commit is against master.. Can you apply the change to the f23 branch?
Done: https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/spin-kickstarts.git/commit/?h=f23
This worked. The device inside the vm is eth0. Can someone confirm this is the case on the virtualbox vagrant box?
- Dusty
On 12/11/2015 10:29 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
This worked. The device inside the vm is eth0. Can someone confirm this is the case on the virtualbox vagrant box?
Device inside the VirtualBox... box is also eth0. Also did a quick docker pull and ssh from the box to make sure networking came up properly, all good there.
Thanks Dusty & Colin!
Best,
jzb
-
Colin Walters -
Dusty Mabe -
Joe Brockmeier -
Kushal Das