Re: Our Networking Story
On 10/03/14 16:14, Dale Amon wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 09:49:02AM +0100, Oliver Grawert wrote: network manager stores its system connection info in a text file in .ini style format in /etc/NetworkManager/system-connections Thanks for that pointer... but there is nothing in there about eth0, only the WiFi connections past and present. I was sort of hoping for a control file that would let me command network manager Don't use eth0 until I come back and allow you to do so again. And yes, I can see all sorts of issues between it and the interfaces file, but if there are going to be two ways to control interfaces, that needs to be sorted eventually. But I'll settle for a good way to reliably switch eth0 back and forth between netmanager and the interfaces files. man networkmanager.conf Section: [main], no-auto-default= Set devices for which NetworkManager shouldn't create default wired connection (Auto eth0). NetworkManager creates a default wired connection for any wired device that is managed and doesn't have a connection configured. List a device in this option to inhibit creating the default connection for the device. Section: [ifupdown], managed= Controls whether interfaces listed in the 'interfaces' file are managed by NetworkManager. man nmcli Object: dev, disconnect Disconnect a device and prevent the device from automatically activating further connections without user/manual intervention. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Our Networking Story
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 02:48:52PM -0500, Bryan Quigley wrote:
We've had a lot of internal Canonical discussions about our networking
story and before going to a UDS session [1] it was suggested to post to
ubuntu-devel.
*Network Restart*
I'd like to start by asking each of you what you think is the correct way
to restart networking on Ubuntu server? Feel free to write it down and
include it in any replies :).
I don't think it's possible to define restart networking in a way that
everybody understands, and in a way that will always work on complex
configurations.
Instead, I think that we need to focus on *why* you need to restart
networking.
Did you change an interface entry in /etc/network/interfaces{,.d}? Then
ifdown before, and ifup after. Or do others disagree?
Something more complicated? Then I guess we need to consider your
specific use cases. What are they, please?
This reminds me of this bug:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1248283
Daemons can't be expected to continue working if they are (for example)
listening on an interface that disappears. This is why restart
networking is difficult. We could say that they should do so and patch
them all to add handling of a network is down state, or we could
adjust all upstart jobs to automatically stop and start daemons as
required as networking is restarted. But I'm not sure this makes
sense.
It turns out our documentation has been wrong and the following are not
correct and more importantly don't work consistently over 10.04/12.04/14.04
[2]:
sudo /etc/init.d/networking restart
sudo restart networking
The correct way I've been told is to use the ifupdown scripts. It's
important to note that this is different on the desktop due to
network-manager.
I feel we need to publicly discuss if we really want the ifupdown scripts
to be the only supported way to manage/restart networking. We've been
communicating the opposite for quite some time now..
Thank you for bringing this up. It's certainly important if our
documentation is wrong, or we're short of clarity on the process. I
think we should certainly have a blueprint to assign work items to
ensure that all our understanding and documentation is consistent.
Exactly what would we discuss in a session, though, that we can't do on
a mailing list? Is there any controversy here that we need to resolve?
Related question:
Do we not support giving users the ability to restart networking equivalent
to rebooting the system? (Upstart is used when booting, not when manually
doing the ifupdown scripts).
I'd say no, because restarting networking as a general concept isn't
well-defined and unsupported by various components that depend on it
being there. However, I would certainly like to see particular
operations work smoothly without requiring a reboot. Are there specific
cases that do not work well here?
*More complicated network setups*
There are many bugs in regards to bonds/vlans/bridging and other more
complex networking setups. It appears like it might be a limitation to how
ifupdown is designed.
We have had cases where the MTU needs to be set using a pre-up or post-up
option in the interfaces file instead of a plain MTU line.
Bond interfaces can cause significant pausing in boot/network restart
The ifupdown script doesn't actually work on bonded interfaces [3]
race condition updating statefile sometimes networking interfaces won't
come up - was fixed [4]-
We are seeing many more of cases involving complicated networking setups
and with more OpenStack deployments this is going to become more of the
norm.
It would be great to see some effort on prioritising these bugs, and
driving them (presumably in Debian also?) as part of a blueprint.
My understanding is that ifupdown was not designed to handle a parallel
boot process like Upstart or systemd. I'm guessing there are a lot more
bugs lurking due to that, aside from some other issues with the codebase
[5].
What specific solutions are being proposed here?
Robie
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Our Networking Story
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:32:17PM -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: Why was it necessary to have discussions internally when they could have been open by default? (wearing both my Canonical and Ubuntu hats) Are Canonical employees not allowed to speak to each other now? I think you're being unreasonable. As far as I can tell, Bryan spoke to his colleagues about specific problems, reached consensus with his colleagues that these are real problems that affect Ubuntu more generally, and has brought his problem set and thoughts up for public discussion on public mailing lists and at UDS. He's done this (as far as I can tell) before any implementation, or even any thought as to what any decision Ubuntu makes should be. Note that I (Canonical Server Team + Ubuntu Server Team) am as new to this as you are. I'm not aware of any prior internal discussion. The first I heard of this was when he asked, on a public IRC channel, to have the blueprint that he'd written approved, and I (remember, I'm Canonical staff) asked him to email the public list to make sure that his concerns reach as wide a public audience as possible. He's done exactly the right thing, and now you're berating him for this? signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Our Networking Story
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:32:41PM +0100, Stanisław Hodur wrote: If talking about the network, I would add: *Wifi + Ethernet on Desktop* The network gets lost if you have both wireless and Ethernet connection. The wired network should be the preferred one, as it is usually faster. Or else, the recently connected/enabled can become active. Anyway, plugging in should not spoil the connection, as it does now -- I have to disable wireless network manually to get the eth working. This sounds like a straightforward issue that can be solved in one component (NetworkManager), and it just needs someone to work with upstream and get it done. If I understand you correctly, I have the same issue. To work around, I have static IP entries defined in NetworkManager, with neither on automatic. Then I just disconnect one before connecting the other, and my laptop roams between wifi and wired ethernet seamlessly. signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Our Networking Story
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 10:44:07PM -0800, Dale Amon wrote: On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:32:41PM +0100, Stanisław Hodur wrote: *Wifi + Ethernet on Desktop* Which reminds me of another common use of machines that a typical GUI user won't think of. I often configure laptops that for security have wifi, bluetooth etc all turned off at BIOS level, and the only ethernet connection is not to the internet but to a disconnected network that attaches to real, live and quite serious equipment (don't think computer equipment think *equipment*). I really appreciate it when network manager doesn't fight with me over the eth not having any external gateway. I get really annoyed if it does that, but with saucy network-manager and I have at least a temporary truce. It lets me do what I want with eth1 in interfaces and doesn't try to turn it off. And yes, in a previous version it did do that... I used to have to shut it down or even de-install it. So it works, and you have no problem now? signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Our Networking Story
On Friday, March 07, 2014 12:57:37 Robie Basak wrote: On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 01:32:17PM -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote: Why was it necessary to have discussions internally when they could have been open by default? (wearing both my Canonical and Ubuntu hats) Are Canonical employees not allowed to speak to each other now? I think you're being unreasonable. As far as I can tell, Bryan spoke to his colleagues about specific problems, reached consensus with his colleagues that these are real problems that affect Ubuntu more generally, and has brought his problem set and thoughts up for public discussion on public mailing lists and at UDS. He's done this (as far as I can tell) before any implementation, or even any thought as to what any decision Ubuntu makes should be. Note that I (Canonical Server Team + Ubuntu Server Team) am as new to this as you are. I'm not aware of any prior internal discussion. The first I heard of this was when he asked, on a public IRC channel, to have the blueprint that he'd written approved, and I (remember, I'm Canonical staff) asked him to email the public list to make sure that his concerns reach as wide a public audience as possible. He's done exactly the right thing, and now you're berating him for this? That's good to know. On the subject of not berating though, that was not at all clear from the initial message. It could well have been a synonym for we've worked this out internally and now we're going to roll out to the community what we decided. It's not like that doesn't happen either. Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Our Networking Story
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Dale Amon a...@vnl.com wrote: The only feature I hold near and dear is that I be able to ssh into a server in a rack 8000 miles away, fiddle with /etc/network/interfaces if needed, and then reliably ifdown/ifup one of god knows how many connections (I often work with machines that have 8 or even more hardware ethers, not to mention ethn:m's. Just a begging note to think of the systems guys who are making bulk changes using scripts that execute scripts on 5, 10, a hundred or a thousand server (I know guys who do that). Lots of us only use a GUI as a place to let us keep 40 xterm's available... Could you detail what process you are exactly using to do this reliably? Are you using bonds/vlans/bridging? -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Our Networking Story
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Robie Basak robie.ba...@ubuntu.com wrote:
I don't think it's possible to define restart networking in a way that
everybody understands, and in a way that will always work on complex
configurations.
Instead, I think that we need to focus on *why* you need to restart
networking.
Example: A user wants to setup a complicated network setup on many
machines via Puppet. They don't want to have to know the machines
current state for puppet to be able to take it over and do the right
thing. (that's a key point of using puppet, btw)
Did you change an interface entry in /etc/network/interfaces{,.d}? Then
ifdown before, and ifup after. Or do others disagree?
The order seems to be something like this:
1. bring down all the related things that might be using interfaces
you plan to change (dhcpclient, manually disable the bond, etc)
2. Ifdown the interfaces you want to change
3. Make the change in interfaces
4. Ifup the interfaces
5. Maybe you need to bring some daemons back up?
adjust all upstart jobs to automatically stop and start daemons as
required as networking is restarted. But I'm not sure this makes
sense.
That doesn't seems illogical to me.
Thank you for bringing this up. It's certainly important if our
documentation is wrong, or we're short of clarity on the process. I
think we should certainly have a blueprint to assign work items to
ensure that all our understanding and documentation is consistent.
Exactly what would we discuss in a session, though, that we can't do on
a mailing list? Is there any controversy here that we need to resolve?
I, and many others, believe that the ifupdown scripts are not good
enough for the general case problem. Furthermore,
sudo /etc/init.d/networking restart; seems to Just Work on 10.04
sudo restart networking; seems to Just Work on 14.04
Why doesn't either of these work on 12.04? And why can't we
recommend to do sudo restart networking on 14.04?
Basically, why is ifupdown better?
I'd say no, because restarting networking as a general concept isn't
well-defined and unsupported by various components that depend on it
being there. However, I would certainly like to see particular
operations work smoothly without requiring a reboot. Are there specific
cases that do not work well here?
At a basic level, customers want to be assured that when they restart
networking settings it will be equivalent to a restart. Since they
are operated on in different ways via ifupdown vs Upstart (w/ ifupdown
too), it's my understanding that we can not make that guarantee.
Their interfaces file could be incorrect for a parallel boot, but work
fine w/ ifupdown directly or vice versa.
It would be great to see some effort on prioritising these bugs, and
driving them (presumably in Debian also?) as part of a blueprint.
That would definitely be part of the proposed session.
My understanding is that ifupdown was not designed to handle a parallel
boot process like Upstart or systemd. I'm guessing there are a lot more
bugs lurking due to that, aside from some other issues with the codebase
[5].
What specific solutions are being proposed here?
A need for more networking QA.
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Our Networking Story
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Paul Smith p...@mad-scientist.net wrote: I'm not sure this level of detail is needed. I've not tried this on Ubuntu, so maybe it already works fine, but similar to the OP's request on remote Red Hat systems it is always supported to run: service network restart and know that your ssh session will not be dropped while the network restarts (unless you screwed up the network config and it doesn't come back up of course). This also works: service network stop service network start Of course, trying to run stop followed by a start in a different command line can't work: service network stop ... uhm ... oops ... time for a drive!! I think the request is that there be a straightforward restart option that is ensured to not drop the connection (assuming, again, that the start works properly and you haven't changed details of the connection you were using). This my point. Doesn't that make sense ^. None of it works on 12.04. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Our Networking Story
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 01:02:33PM +, Robie Basak wrote: On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 10:44:07PM -0800, Dale Amon wrote: I often configure laptops that for security have wifi, bluetooth etc all turned off at BIOS level, and the only ethernet connection is not to the internet but to a disconnected network that attaches to real, live and quite serious equipment (don't think computer equipment think *equipment*). I really appreciate it when network manager doesn't fight with me over the eth not having any external gateway. I get really annoyed if it does that, but with saucy network-manager and I have at least a temporary truce. It lets me do what I want with eth1 in interfaces and doesn't try to turn it off. And yes, in a previous version it did do that... I used to have to shut it down or even de-install it. So it works, and you have no problem now? This is for the general discussion, an example of mission critical usage of the networking infrastructure that should be taken into consideration as people work through their ideas on where networking control is going. As to your question, yes, until the next release. I always face version upgrades with trepidation. I've still not fully recovered from the upgrade to saucy on my laptop. The list of things that broke is getting shorter, but I only get a few hours free each weekend to even think about it. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Our Networking Story
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 09:39:40AM -0500, Bryan Quigley wrote: Lots of us only use a GUI as a place to let us keep 40 xterm's available... Could you detail what process you are exactly using to do this reliably? Are you using bonds/vlans/bridging? On my current job, I am using a laptop that goes out to run test gear on a remote test stand. I turn off wifi; there is no wire on eth0 and I use a USB dongle for an eth1. I have a simple subnet in RFC 1918 space that I bring up with an ifup on site. I've found over the years that network manager tries really hard to bring up an external connection and it owns eth0 from boot time, but not the USB that I plug in later. As to other configurations, on servers I just remove network manager and everything to do with it because its too high a risk. It is hard to nail down specific scenarios because (up until two years ago) I worked as a gypsy consultant, hopping from one customer to another and fixing things. Mostly though, you set up an interfaces file, work out any of the funky issues... and then it may not change for years. If something goes wrong I might have to remotely go in and reset or tweak something. Hard to get more specific. It all muddles together over the years but I have dealt with most things. Not a lot of bonding, although I did work with a 'big iron' Intel modular server with a modular and programmable block of ethers that gave myself and two other engineers a merry chase until we finally beat it into submission... but that was not a Linux problem per se, although we were running Linux on the modules. Just take this as a general plea to keep things simple and always in ASCII config files so that some poor SOB who has to fix something in the middle of the night over an a possibly intercontinental connection via ssh or IP to RS232 gateway while fiddling with a remote power control unit to power cycle it... -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Our Networking Story
Sorry for sending this to you twice, Bryan, but my first attempt is stuck in the moderation queue. 2014-03-07 1:18 GMT+05:30 Bryan Quigley bryan.quig...@canonical.com: *Network Restart* I'd like to start by asking each of you what you think is the correct way to restart networking on Ubuntu server? Feel free to write it down and include it in any replies :). Depends on why you're restarting the network. If I've just changed an IP address, I'd probably do an ifdown $IFACE; ifup $IFACE in screen or something. If the changes are more involved than that, you need to be careful. One scenario I've seen countless times is this: 1. Install Ubuntu Server on a network with DHCP. 2. Log in afterwards to switch to static IP's. 3. Change /etc/network/interfaces to have the static config. 4. Restart networking (using whichever of the methods you give as examples). 5. Verify that their static address is correctly assigned. 6. Come back an hour later and see that it's now using DHCP again. 7. Come to #ubuntu-server and complain. What most people fail to realise (or consider) is that ifdown reads the *current* configuration to see what to do. So when you've booted with DHCP (and thus have a dhcp client running in the background), change /etc/network/interfaces and run ifdown (directly or by way of /etc/init.d/networking or whatever), ifdown has no clue that there's a dhcp client that it needs to worry about. It just deconfigures that interfaces as it would have any other statically configured interface, because that's what /etc/network/interfaces says it should do. When it's ifup'ed again, it gets the right address assigned, but the dhcp client is still running in the background, waiting to screw up your network config once the lease is about to expire. This is a common example, but the same issue applies when you're adding/removing up/pre-up/down/post-down commands. People usually remember to make sure that anything you establish during up (or pre-up) you also tear down in down (or post-down), but if you add or remove things, you need to remember this caveat when restarting networking. Depending on how helpful I feel when people ask this on #ubuntu-server, I either explain this or just tell them to reboot. *shrug* -- Soren Hansen Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.ubuntu.com/ OpenStack Developer http://www.openstack.org/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Our Networking Story
We've had a lot of internal Canonical discussions about our networking story and before going to a UDS session [1] it was suggested to post to ubuntu-devel. *Network Restart* I'd like to start by asking each of you what you think is the correct way to restart networking on Ubuntu server? Feel free to write it down and include it in any replies :). It turns out our documentation has been wrong and the following are not correct and more importantly don't work consistently over 10.04/12.04/14.04 [2]: sudo /etc/init.d/networking restart sudo restart networking The correct way I've been told is to use the ifupdown scripts. It's important to note that this is different on the desktop due to network-manager. I feel we need to publicly discuss if we really want the ifupdown scripts to be the only supported way to manage/restart networking. We've been communicating the opposite for quite some time now.. Related question: Do we not support giving users the ability to restart networking equivalent to rebooting the system? (Upstart is used when booting, not when manually doing the ifupdown scripts). *More complicated network setups* There are many bugs in regards to bonds/vlans/bridging and other more complex networking setups. It appears like it might be a limitation to how ifupdown is designed. We have had cases where the MTU needs to be set using a pre-up or post-up option in the interfaces file instead of a plain MTU line. Bond interfaces can cause significant pausing in boot/network restart The ifupdown script doesn't actually work on bonded interfaces [3] race condition updating statefile sometimes networking interfaces won't come up - was fixed [4]- We are seeing many more of cases involving complicated networking setups and with more OpenStack deployments this is going to become more of the norm. My understanding is that ifupdown was not designed to handle a parallel boot process like Upstart or systemd. I'm guessing there are a lot more bugs lurking due to that, aside from some other issues with the codebase [5]. *Future Releases* NetworkManager everywhere? systemd-networkd? Thanks for discussing, Bryan [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/servercloud-1403-networking [2] If you want to see where those actually work see my document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OBN3efJ1LmA0-0DzD3K0eUkIuQdscxLQ-QO1yi3bHeM/edit [3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ifenslave-2.6/+bug/1254120 [4] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ifupdown/+bug/1160490 [5] http://pureperl.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-debian-ifupdown-package-and.html -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Our Networking Story
Why was it necessary to have discussions internally when they could have been open by default? On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Bryan Quigley bryan.quig...@canonical.com wrote: We've had a lot of internal Canonical discussions about our networking story and before going to a UDS session [1] it was suggested to post to ubuntu-devel. *Network Restart* I'd like to start by asking each of you what you think is the correct way to restart networking on Ubuntu server? Feel free to write it down and include it in any replies :). It turns out our documentation has been wrong and the following are not correct and more importantly don't work consistently over 10.04/12.04/14.04 [2]: sudo /etc/init.d/networking restart sudo restart networking The correct way I've been told is to use the ifupdown scripts. It's important to note that this is different on the desktop due to network-manager. I feel we need to publicly discuss if we really want the ifupdown scripts to be the only supported way to manage/restart networking. We've been communicating the opposite for quite some time now.. Related question: Do we not support giving users the ability to restart networking equivalent to rebooting the system? (Upstart is used when booting, not when manually doing the ifupdown scripts). *More complicated network setups* There are many bugs in regards to bonds/vlans/bridging and other more complex networking setups. It appears like it might be a limitation to how ifupdown is designed. We have had cases where the MTU needs to be set using a pre-up or post-up option in the interfaces file instead of a plain MTU line. Bond interfaces can cause significant pausing in boot/network restart The ifupdown script doesn't actually work on bonded interfaces [3] race condition updating statefile sometimes networking interfaces won't come up - was fixed [4]- We are seeing many more of cases involving complicated networking setups and with more OpenStack deployments this is going to become more of the norm. My understanding is that ifupdown was not designed to handle a parallel boot process like Upstart or systemd. I'm guessing there are a lot more bugs lurking due to that, aside from some other issues with the codebase [5]. *Future Releases* NetworkManager everywhere? systemd-networkd? Thanks for discussing, Bryan [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/servercloud-1403-networking [2] If you want to see where those actually work see my document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OBN3efJ1LmA0-0DzD3K0eUkIuQdscxLQ-QO1yi3bHeM/edit [3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ifenslave-2.6/+bug/1254120 [4] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ifupdown/+bug/1160490 [5] http://pureperl.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-debian-ifupdown-package-and.html -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Benjamin Kerensa http://benjaminkerensa.com I am what I am because of who we all are - Ubuntu -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Our Networking Story
On 6 March 2014 21:32, Benjamin Kerensa bkere...@ubuntu.com wrote: Why was it necessary to have discussions internally when they could have been open by default? Eh... this particular bug is public and well known in both Debian and Ubuntu for a long time now. As you can see in that email, he references a few things dating back more than a year ago, but there is more one can dig through in launchpad bug reports. It's just it's making a new round of discussions about it, and he is bringing this topic up at the upcomming UDS and is advertising the session in advance =) to gather together relevant people. Also, please do not top post, on ubuntu mailing list. Regards, Dimitri. ps. Didn't you part Ubuntu Community?! On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Bryan Quigley bryan.quig...@canonical.com wrote: We've had a lot of internal Canonical discussions about our networking story and before going to a UDS session [1] it was suggested to post to ubuntu-devel. *Network Restart* I'd like to start by asking each of you what you think is the correct way to restart networking on Ubuntu server? Feel free to write it down and include it in any replies :). It turns out our documentation has been wrong and the following are not correct and more importantly don't work consistently over 10.04/12.04/14.04 [2]: sudo /etc/init.d/networking restart sudo restart networking The correct way I've been told is to use the ifupdown scripts. It's important to note that this is different on the desktop due to network-manager. I feel we need to publicly discuss if we really want the ifupdown scripts to be the only supported way to manage/restart networking. We've been communicating the opposite for quite some time now.. Related question: Do we not support giving users the ability to restart networking equivalent to rebooting the system? (Upstart is used when booting, not when manually doing the ifupdown scripts). *More complicated network setups* There are many bugs in regards to bonds/vlans/bridging and other more complex networking setups. It appears like it might be a limitation to how ifupdown is designed. We have had cases where the MTU needs to be set using a pre-up or post-up option in the interfaces file instead of a plain MTU line. Bond interfaces can cause significant pausing in boot/network restart The ifupdown script doesn't actually work on bonded interfaces [3] race condition updating statefile sometimes networking interfaces won't come up - was fixed [4]- We are seeing many more of cases involving complicated networking setups and with more OpenStack deployments this is going to become more of the norm. My understanding is that ifupdown was not designed to handle a parallel boot process like Upstart or systemd. I'm guessing there are a lot more bugs lurking due to that, aside from some other issues with the codebase [5]. *Future Releases* NetworkManager everywhere? systemd-networkd? Thanks for discussing, Bryan [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/servercloud-1403-networking [2] If you want to see where those actually work see my document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OBN3efJ1LmA0-0DzD3K0eUkIuQdscxLQ-QO1yi3bHeM/edit [3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ifenslave-2.6/+bug/1254120 [4] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ifupdown/+bug/1160490 [5] http://pureperl.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-debian-ifupdown-package-and.html -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Benjamin Kerensa http://benjaminkerensa.com I am what I am because of who we all are - Ubuntu -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss -- Regards, Dimitri. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Our Networking Story
If talking about the network, I would add: *Wifi + Ethernet on Desktop* The network gets lost if you have both wireless and Ethernet connection. The wired network should be the preferred one, as it is usually faster. Or else, the recently connected/enabled can become active. Anyway, plugging in should not spoil the connection, as it does now -- I have to disable wireless network manually to get the eth working. Best regards Stanislaus W dniu 2014-03-06 20:48, Bryan Quigley pisze: We've had a lot of internal Canonical discussions about our networking story and before going to a UDS session [1] it was suggested to post to ubuntu-devel. *Network Restart* I'd like to start by asking each of you what you think is the correct way to restart networking on Ubuntu server? Feel free to write it down and include it in any replies :). It turns out our documentation has been wrong and the following are not correct and more importantly don't work consistently over 10.04/12.04/14.04 [2]: sudo /etc/init.d/networking restart sudo restart networking The correct way I've been told is to use the ifupdown scripts. It's important to note that this is different on the desktop due to network-manager. I feel we need to publicly discuss if we really want the ifupdown scripts to be the only supported way to manage/restart networking. We've been communicating the opposite for quite some time now.. Related question: Do we not support giving users the ability to restart networking equivalent to rebooting the system? (Upstart is used when booting, not when manually doing the ifupdown scripts). *More complicated network setups* There are many bugs in regards to bonds/vlans/bridging and other more complex networking setups. It appears like it might be a limitation to how ifupdown is designed. We have had cases where the MTU needs to be set using a pre-up or post-up option in the interfaces file instead of a plain MTU line. Bond interfaces can cause significant pausing in boot/network restart The ifupdown script doesn't actually work on bonded interfaces [3] race condition updating statefile sometimes networking interfaces won't come up - was fixed [4]- We are seeing many more of cases involving complicated networking setups and with more OpenStack deployments this is going to become more of the norm. My understanding is that ifupdown was not designed to handle a parallel boot process like Upstart or systemd. I'm guessing there are a lot more bugs lurking due to that, aside from some other issues with the codebase [5]. *Future Releases* NetworkManager everywhere? systemd-networkd? Thanks for discussing, Bryan [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/servercloud-1403-networking [2] If you want to see where those actually work see my document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OBN3efJ1LmA0-0DzD3K0eUkIuQdscxLQ-QO1yi3bHeM/edit [3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ifenslave-2.6/+bug/1254120 [4] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ifupdown/+bug/1160490 [5] http://pureperl.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-debian-ifupdown-package-and.html -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Our Networking Story
On Thursday, March 06, 2014 14:48:52 Bryan Quigley wrote: We've had a lot of internal Canonical discussions about our networking story and before going to a UDS session [1] it was suggested to post to ubuntu-devel. *Network Restart* I'd like to start by asking each of you what you think is the correct way to restart networking on Ubuntu server? Feel free to write it down and include it in any replies :). It turns out our documentation has been wrong and the following are not correct and more importantly don't work consistently over 10.04/12.04/14.04 [2]: sudo /etc/init.d/networking restart sudo restart networking The correct way I've been told is to use the ifupdown scripts. It's important to note that this is different on the desktop due to network-manager. I feel we need to publicly discuss if we really want the ifupdown scripts to be the only supported way to manage/restart networking. We've been communicating the opposite for quite some time now.. Related question: Do we not support giving users the ability to restart networking equivalent to rebooting the system? (Upstart is used when booting, not when manually doing the ifupdown scripts). *More complicated network setups* There are many bugs in regards to bonds/vlans/bridging and other more complex networking setups. It appears like it might be a limitation to how ifupdown is designed. We have had cases where the MTU needs to be set using a pre-up or post-up option in the interfaces file instead of a plain MTU line. Bond interfaces can cause significant pausing in boot/network restart The ifupdown script doesn't actually work on bonded interfaces [3] race condition updating statefile sometimes networking interfaces won't come up - was fixed [4]- We are seeing many more of cases involving complicated networking setups and with more OpenStack deployments this is going to become more of the norm. My understanding is that ifupdown was not designed to handle a parallel boot process like Upstart or systemd. I'm guessing there are a lot more bugs lurking due to that, aside from some other issues with the codebase [5]. *Future Releases* NetworkManager everywhere? systemd-networkd? Thanks for discussing, Bryan [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/servercloud-1403-networking [2] If you want to see where those actually work see my document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OBN3efJ1LmA0-0DzD3K0eUkIuQdscxLQ-QO1yi3b HeM/edit [3] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ifenslave-2.6/+bug/1254120 [4] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ifupdown/+bug/1160490 [5] http://pureperl.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-debian-ifupdown-package-and.html Whatever the solution is for this, it's a problem that Ubuntu and Debian share. Now that (eventually) we will single up on a common, modern init system, I think it's critical to work with the relevant Debian stakeholders on a common approach. Debian also has a stack of bugs around cases that ifupdown doesn't support well and there have been discussions about the best way to move forward, but they have (so far) foundered of a lack of knowledgeable manpower to do the work. Perhaps working together, Debian and Ubuntu can get it done. I don't know what the right answer is myself, but based on some of these prior discussions and my own experience with NetworkManager on the desktop, I'm pretty sure that's not it. Scott K -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Our Networking Story
The only feature I hold near and dear is that I be able to ssh into a server in a rack 8000 miles away, fiddle with /etc/network/interfaces if needed, and then reliably ifdown/ifup one of god knows how many connections (I often work with machines that have 8 or even more hardware ethers, not to mention ethn:m's. Just a begging note to think of the systems guys who are making bulk changes using scripts that execute scripts on 5, 10, a hundred or a thousand server (I know guys who do that). Lots of us only use a GUI as a place to let us keep 40 xterm's available... -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Our Networking Story
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 11:32:41PM +0100, Stanisław Hodur wrote: *Wifi + Ethernet on Desktop* Which reminds me of another common use of machines that a typical GUI user won't think of. I often configure laptops that for security have wifi, bluetooth etc all turned off at BIOS level, and the only ethernet connection is not to the internet but to a disconnected network that attaches to real, live and quite serious equipment (don't think computer equipment think *equipment*). I really appreciate it when network manager doesn't fight with me over the eth not having any external gateway. I get really annoyed if it does that, but with saucy network-manager and I have at least a temporary truce. It lets me do what I want with eth1 in interfaces and doesn't try to turn it off. And yes, in a previous version it did do that... I used to have to shut it down or even de-install it. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
