| 1 |
On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 11:02 -0700, Mark Dierolf wrote: |
| 2 |
> I'm talking about setting a default that's less than 60 seconds. I know i can |
| 3 |
> change it, but IMO 60 seconds is an annoying wait when you're stuck booting a |
| 4 |
> machine some other admin just bootstrapped. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Another admin, eh? Then you should only have to deal with this problem |
| 7 |
exactly once, right? After all, you're going to fix it as soon as you |
| 8 |
get on the machine anyway. Have you considered cluing the other admin |
| 9 |
in so he will be more thoughtful next time? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I think the people who NEED to wait 60 seconds should increase it. Or better |
| 13 |
> yet, they should fix their network. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Complain to the authors. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
They're the ones that set the default at 60 seconds. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
We have given you the ability to change it yourself. Just because you |
| 20 |
do not does not necessarily mean a fault on our part. This is |
| 21 |
especially true with the newer baselayout/network init scripts that are |
| 22 |
being worked on. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> You should get a DHCP response in < 10 seconds, it's as simple as that. If you |
| 25 |
> don't, something is screwed up. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Really? Do you use wireless? Ever been on a busy Windows network? |
| 28 |
There are plenty of reasons why the timeout exists at 60 seconds. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> The vast majority of people would be ok with a 10 second dhcp timeout, and |
| 31 |
> those who aren't can increase it. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Once they learn how to do so. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Here is my take on it. It is one thing to have a *slight* (yes, 60 |
| 36 |
seconds is slight) delay the first time a machine boots off-network than |
| 37 |
to try to teach someone that the reason why they didn't get a DHCP |
| 38 |
response was because we lowered the timeout from what the original |
| 39 |
author set the default at to pacify a few vocal users. Want to guess |
| 40 |
how long it would take most users to even get to this point in their |
| 41 |
troubleshooting? Would *you* like to field all the inevitable |
| 42 |
questions/bug reports? Remember that a minor inconvenience for you is |
| 43 |
much better than a non-functional system for someone else. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> On Thursday 14 October 2004 10:22 am, Jason Rhinelander wrote: |
| 46 |
> > Mark Dierolf wrote: |
| 47 |
> > > As long as there is an option to change the timeout, I don't think we'll |
| 48 |
> > > get many complaints. |
| 49 |
> > |
| 50 |
> > There is, it's called dhcpcd_eth0 in /etc/conf.d/net. Just add "-t 10" |
| 51 |
> > and you have your 10 second timeout. Alternatively, set up your boot |
| 52 |
> > loader to give you a choice - I do this, and I choose "Gentoo" (boots |
| 53 |
> > with softlevel=default, which starts net.eth0), or "Wireless" (boots |
| 54 |
> > with softlevel=wireless, which starts net.wlan0 and NOT net.eth0) or |
| 55 |
> > "Networkless" (boots with softlevel=nonetwork). After all, YOU are |
| 56 |
> > hopefully going to know better than Gentoo whether or not your network |
| 57 |
> > should be up. |
| 58 |
> > |
| 59 |
> > -- Jason Rhinelander |
| 60 |
> > |
| 61 |
> > -- |
| 62 |
> > gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> -- |
| 65 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 66 |
> |
Archives