Re: Bonded NIC's did not come up at boot?
On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:04:47 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Camaleón put forth on 11/24/2010 4:58 AM:
>>> Write the developers and ask them to make the next version bomb with
>>> virtual NICs, which is what it should do.
>>
>> Why bombing?
>>
>> A warning message is far more elegant and useful since makes the user
>> to question himself if he is using the right tool for the job.
>
> Oh, so you want a product safety warning, like that found on a can of
> spray paint saying "POISON: Do not inhale contents"?
No, I prefer a tool that does not give incorrect information to the user.
> ~# ethtool lo
> Settings for lo:
> Link detected: yes
>
> ~# mii-tool lo
> SIOCGMIIPHY on 'lo' failed: Operation not supported
>
> There is no link for ethtool to detect, so it's output is BS. mii-tool
> at least gave a reasonably clear error in this case.
Why BS?
As long as your "lo" interface is up and present (it is, isn't it?)
ethtool is giving you its current status. No more no less. Nothing about
speed nor other settings that cannot be measured for that kind of
interface.
Look, your above example demonstrates my points:
1/ Unsupported interfaces (like "lo") are properly identified and that
information is presented to the user.
2/ If virtual (bond0, br0, tap0...) are "supported" at least for getting
information about their mii values, then it has to provide accurate
information, at least the one is displayed with "cat /proc/net/bonding/
bond0". Period.
> However...
>
> Pointing mii-tool or ethtool at a virtual NIC is just as stupid as
> pointing it at the loopback device as both are, once again, VIRTUAL
> devices, and have no physical parameters such as link speed or duplex,
> because they don't have a PHY. These tools are designed to query a PHY
> for link speed and duplex.
And so acts "ethtool" when the user specifies a virtual interface,
basically it says: "hey, you dumb... this is not the tool you need to
check the status of your bonded interfaces. Go away".
> Do you understand my point now? Only ignorant people would point
> mii-tool or ethtool at a _virtual_ NIC, just as only ignorant people
> would point these tools at the loopback device. Do you understand my
> point? Did I really need to be this blunt?
And what makes you think people is here to listen _your_ points? People
is here to _learn_ :-)
OP was asking about the (wrong) output he got when using "mii-tool" and
asked. You replied to him (sic) that "mii-tool was flawed" but didn't
point to another tool to get the job done (verifiying the status of the
bonded interfaces). I corroborated the information he was getting, in
fact, mii-tool showed an unrealistic value.
If you know a better tool for this then just tell and take our "poor
minds" from our big ignorance but let me to complain about something I
consider it should be warned or better yet, corrected.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: