| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 05:04:18PM +0200, Stefan Schweizer wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:32:43 +0100, Daniel Drake <dsd@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > If I remember right, this was done for a short period of time. It caused |
| 4 |
> > problems. For example, I had "ntpdate" in my runlevel at the time, and it |
| 5 |
> > tried to start up directly after net.eth0. But net.eth0 hadn't completed the |
| 6 |
> > DHCP request in time, so my network interface was not ready to synchronise |
| 7 |
> > with a time server. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> We could solve this by wating one or 2 secs and then backgrounding the |
| 10 |
> dhcp request. |
| 11 |
> Not sure how feasible this is, though. |
| 12 |
> But I think its intolerable for the average dhcp laptop user to wait |
| 13 |
> 60 secs if he does not get a dhcp answer. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
so set the timeout for dhcpcd to 10. Or use ifplugd to dynamically start the |
| 16 |
net.ethX scripts. I think it's "intolerable" to break peoples servers |
| 17 |
in the name of speed when there are other options. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-pete |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> -- |
| 23 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Peter Johanson |
| 28 |
<latexer@g.o> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives