Re: Debian Squeeze Boot-up stalls waiting for dhcp to obtain address
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Hugo Vanwoerkom <hvw59601@care2.com> wrote:
> Arthur Machlas wrote:
>>
>> Did a network install of Squeeze the other day, on a computer without
>> wireless. Normally I remove everything but lo in
>> /etc/network/interfaces, but after resume from suspend network-manager
>> reported disabling device eth0 for reason 2, whatever that meant, and
>> the only way to bring it back up was to reboot. It was gone from
>> ifconfig!
>
> You mean you installed squeeze and after the install and the reboot did a
> suspend?
>
That's right. Install squeeze (netinstall, minimal, only base).
Reboot. Add packages (e.g., gnome-core, network-manager,
gnome-power-manager, etc.). Reboot. Internet works, but
network-manager isn't managing it. I remove eth0 from
/etc/network/interfaces and reload network-manager. It now manages
eth0. Made desktop pretty. Configured to standby after 1 hr. Left
computer. Computer went to standby after one hour. When resumed, no
eth0 network interface in iwconfig. Network-manager logs have cryptic
message about disabling eth0 for "reason 2".
Can't rmmod and modprobe eth driver has no effect. service
network-mananger restart has no effect. Reboot is only solution to
bringing eth0 interface back up.
Googling issue suggests its a bug related to network manager's managed
versus unmanaged settings regarding interfaces listed in
/etc/network/interfaces. I put eth0 back into /etc/network/interaces
and tell nm to manage devices in /etc/network/interfaces. Things work
well. Desktop is pretty. When resuming from suspend, network interace
is brought back up by n-m and connects normally.
Take laptop to kitchen, reboot at some point, and boot-up process is
slowed down while dhcp tries to obtain an ip address. This delays boot
by about a minute while it tries and tries and tries and fails to get
an ip address, and it won't ever get one because it's not connected to
the network.
Hopefully this is better summary of problem.
Reply to: