disabling dhcp for eth1 in kernel

[Harry Mills]

Yep - does seem a little confusing.

What does the KS log say (<Alt>+<F3>)? Can you see it get the correct IP from the DHCP server on eth0? On my install (Which is booted from a USB key) I see it get the network info for eth2 (my onboard card) and then fetch the ks.cfg. It never attempts to initialise any of the other cards.

The only other oddness I have come across is where later kernel's probe order is different - my onboard always used to be eth0 until one OS version later... it was eth2 :)

Cheers

Harry



On Thu, 25 Aug, Lloyd T Brown wrote:
> That was what I thought too.  Now, like I said, this is my first time 
> working with Kickstart, so I may be missing something.  Basically, I use 
> the following parameters:
> 
> ks=nfs:192.168.201.28:/opt/rhel_image_kickstart/m4b-1-17.ks/ks.cfg 
> ksdevice=eth0
> 
> The installation begins, loads a few modules, states that it is trying 
> to get a dhcp address for eth0, then tries with eth1.  Since the eth1 
> dhcp fails, as expected, a dialog pops up to ask for user input, either 
> to try dhcp again, or to put a static IP address in.  I put a static 
> address in, and the installation proceeds exactly as planned.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that I'm sure you're right that when I 
> specify the ksdevice that the device I specify will be the only one used 
> to fetch the ks.cfg, etc.  All the evidence seems to support this.  The 
> problem is that, despite this, Kickstart still seems to want to 
> configure eth1, even though it's totally unnecessary.
> 
> As far as your question, I'm pretty sure the machine can locate the nfs 
> server.  I only export the directory on the NFS server to 192.168.201.x 
> subnet, and I'm putting in a 192.168.2.x address into eth1 by hand.  I'm 
> pretty sure that, since the installation proceeds alright from there on, 
> that it's working correctly.  That, and once the system is up, I can 
> mount it by hand without any trouble.  Since I'm using an IP address for 
> the nfs server, I don't think resolving the hostname is the issue either.
> 
> Thanks,
> Lloyd