On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 12:04:06AM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Mike Telahun Makonnen > <mmakon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Brooks Davis <bro...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> > >> I don't have much time to debug this, but I've not had problems with > >> services starting too early on the systems I've been running with async > >> dhcp. ?If there is a problem with the wait process we need to actually > >> debug it. ?If the wait for a route/running interface isn't sufficent we > >> should try to figure out what is. ?Synchronous dhcp sucks and yeilds > >> justifed user complaints so it would be nice to kill it off. ?I switched > >> the default because it worked for me and I hoped that people would help > >> find and fix edge cases. > > > > Can you elaborate why synchronous DHCP sucks ? > > The only reason I could see is bringup time. Am I correct in this assumption?
If you use synchronous DHCP then every interface that wants to try to get a DHCP address if it has link needs to run through the full link timeout at boot. On a laptop this is annoying and generally pointless. The changes to defaultroute to wait for a default route to be set mean that you consolidate the wait in one location and you don't waste time starting dhclient on interfaces until a link exists (or an association is made for wlan devices). There may well be something better to wait or a need for a longer timeout in some environments. It's also quite possible that we have an ordering problem and need to move some more things after defaultroute or move the checks to a different location. -- Brooks
pgpAbzxDQ6Gd2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
