Context for newbies: Linux refers to network adapters (wifi cards, ethernet cards, etc.) by so called “interfaces”. For the longest time, the interface names were assigned based on the type of device and the order in which the system discovered it. So, eth0, eth1, wlan0, and wwan0 are all possible interface names. This, however, can be an issue: “the order in which the system discovered it” is not deterministic, which means hardware can switch interface names across reboots. This can be a real issue for things like servers that rely on interface names staying the same.

The solution to this issue is to assign custom names based on MAC address. The MAC address is hardcoded into the network adaptor, and will not change. (There are other ways to do this as well, such as setting udev rules).

Redhat, however, found this solution too simple and instead devised their own scheme for assigning network interface names. It fails at solving the problem it was created to solve while making it much harder to type and remember interface names.

To disable predictable interface naming and switch back to the old scheme, add net.ifnames=0 and biosdevname=0 to your boot paramets.

The template for this meme is called “stop doing math”.

  • notabot@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’m with our binary friend; the systems they try to replace tend to be time tested, reliable and simple (if not necessarily immediately obvious) to manage. I can think of a single instance where a Redhat-ism is better, or even equivalent, to what we already have. In eavh case it’s been a pretty transparent attempt to move from Embrace to Extend, and that never ends well for the users.

    • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      I can think of a single instance where a Redhat-ism is better

      I don’t know if it would be accurate to call it a redhat-ism, but btrfs is pretty amazing. Transparent compression? Copy-on-write? Yes please! I’ve been using it for so long now that it’s spoiled me lol. Whenever I’m on an ext4 system I have to keep reminding myself that copying a huge file or directory will… you know… actually copy it instead of just making reflinks

      • notabot@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        I’ve never actually tried BTRFS, there were a few too many “it loses all your data” bugs in the early days, and I was already using ZFS by then anyway. ZFS has more than it’s fair share of problems, but I’m pretty confident my data is safe, and it has the same upsides as BTRFS. I’m looking forward to seeing how BCachefs works now it’s in kernel, and I really want to compare all three under real workloads.

        • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Ooh, I’ve never heard of bcachefs, sounds exciting! I see it supports encryption natively, which btrfs doesn’t. Pretty cool!

          Personally I’ve never had any issues with btrfs, but I did start using it only a couple years ago, when it was already stable. Makes sense that you’d stick with zfs tho, if that’s what you’re used to.

        • farcaller@fstab.sh
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          There’s a whole bunch of “it loses all your data” bugs in OpenZFS too, ironically, although it’s way way less fragile than btrfs in general.

          That said, the latter is pretty much solid too, unless you do raid5-like things.

          • notabot@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yeah, I know there was one a while back, and if you don’t use ECC RAM, given enough time, it will eat your data as it tries to correct checksum errors due to memory corruption. That’s why we keep backups, right. Right?

            I tend to assume that every storage system will eventually lose data, so having multiple copies is vital.