[01:13] <Super> Hello. I am having trouble with upstart. I don't know how to find the PID of a program Upstart started.
[01:17] <sarnold> Super: see e.g. "sudo status atd"
[01:18] <Super> Thanks.
[01:19] <Super> The program I need to restart/start/stop starts using upstart but it is not in sync with /etc/init.d/program but the pid of /etc/init.d/program is correct. it points to /var/run/program/
[01:19] <Super> What I want is to sync Upstart and Init.
[01:20] <Super> For this specific program.
[01:22] <Super> Somehow the PID aren't in sync between Upstart and Init.
[02:52] <atpa8a> hmm
[02:52] <atpa8a> what's the correct way to configure both untagged vlan and tagged vlan on an interface?..
[02:54] <atpa8a> hmm
[02:54] <atpa8a> both eth0 and eth0.1 get ip config?...
[03:00] <dustinspringman> so... i'm trying to finish up my VPN aggregation server... and I've got all my routers that connect to the 14.04 server up and running... the only snag I've hit is getting my 12.04 server to route to all my routers via the 14.04 server.. anyone got some time to help me pinpoint my issue? Tunnel from 12.04 server to 14.04 server is UP.. Route shows UP.. Can ping from 12.04 to 14.04 and vice versa... just can't reach 1
[05:42] <Trudko> Guys I have ubuntu server in production and I would like to copy it easily to my testing environment any tool to do it?
[08:02] <lordievader> Good morning.
[10:22] <ashd> Have an issue with 14.x LTS hanging after/on “random: nonblocking pool is initialized done.” during boot,  File systems are clean. trying various routes I have re-formatted swap, configured grub into console mode - It is a ESXi container which had an accidental hard shutdown, but that might not be the issue as i had not rebooted since the last update. What would be the next event after "random: nonblocking pool is initialized”
[10:27] <ashd> it looks like this…  http://screencast.com/t/GaIaYBMh7
[10:46] <vedic> I am looking to use 12.04 LTS 64bit server for production use. This production environment will have 16 core process, 16 gb ram, 300 gb raid 1 hdd and panel to create virtual machines on it. As i read this link, it makes me feel like Ubuntu server is wrong choice: http://www.reddit.com/r/linuxadmin/comments/15lmqi/alright_whats_really_wrong_with_using_ubuntu/
[10:47] <histo> vedic: what panel?
[10:47] <vedic> histo: virtualization via VMWare
[10:49] <histo> vedic: is there a question there?
[10:49] <vedic> histo: Why ubuntu is not a good choice? Is it biased towards other OSes or its really true
[10:49] <histo> vedic: Is what biased?
[10:50] <vedic> histo: http://www.reddit.com/r/linuxadmin/comments/15lmqi/alright_whats_really_wrong_with_using_ubuntu/
[10:50] <cfhowlett> vedic I'm not an admin, but after scanning the article, couldn't the same be said of - well - ANY distro?
[10:51] <N0DE`> vedic ...depends on what you wanna do ...
[10:51] <vedic> NODE`: like what
[10:52] <N0DE`> my company had to switch from Ubuntu to Centos ...because we prefer stability, predictability over edge / updates
[10:52] <N0DE`> we deal with dozens of cassandra servers, some virtualized in xen ...currently moving into cloudstack too
[10:53] <N0DE`> Ubuntu is still one of my fav OS to play around with things... because of its large packages and stuff.
[10:53] <histo> N0DE`: what kind of release cycle does centos have?
[10:53] <histo> N0DE`: that offers more stability that its
[10:53] <histo> s/its/is?/
[10:55] <N0DE`> Centos do not update libraries too frequently ... thats why their repos are way behind and most of the time you have to do self compilation on trying out new things.
[10:55] <N0DE`> i still remember centos 6.5 still being on python 2.6 libraries for example
[10:57] <histo> N0DE`: lts versions of ubuntu are supported for 5 years
[10:57] <N0DE`> nonetheless ... seasoned admins ... should be well aware before applying updates and know what they are updating... the convenience of apt-get dist-upgrade as such created alot of complacent admins ...not really understanding what they are updating and then complains.
[10:57] <histo> true
[11:00] <N0DE`> :P
[11:01] <N0DE`> i have a fair share of nightmares running centos as well .... so i would just say, go with what you a comfortable and familiar with.. and look through on the level of difficulty to achieve the setups / softwares you will be running
[11:01] <N0DE`> there is no one size fits all IMHO
[13:05] <MACscr> hmm, got a server where the udev names dont seem to have been applied to my network interfaces after a reboot. Any suggestions?
[13:06] <MACscr> im running 14.04
[14:03] <dustinspringman> anyone around familiar with pptp routing?
[14:07] <RoyK> imho pptp should be shot in the neck and dumped on deep water, but that's another story :P
[14:08] <fabske> Helo
[14:08] <fabske> I have a big problem
[14:09] <fabske> with our server
[14:12] <fabske> I have installed ubuntu server 12.04 on a 250gb harddisk
[14:12] <fabske> no i have a new harddisk, 3TB
[14:12] <fabske> so i changed the harddisks and installed ubuntu server 14.04 64bit
[14:12] <fabske> but i cannot go online with it :(
[14:13] <fabske> the ethernet adapters are em1 and p4p1
[14:13] <fabske> i copied the /etc/network/interfaces from the old harddisk to the new one
[14:13] <fabske> but i cannot set up a network connection
[14:15] <RoyK> fabske: 14.04 uses bios names for the ethernet adapters by default
[14:15] <RoyK> fabske: guess your old interfaces file had names like eth[01]
[14:16] <fabske> yes
[14:16] <fabske> and i already tried to change them to p4p1
[14:16] <fabske> even following does NOT work:
[14:16] <fabske> auto p4p1
[14:16] <RoyK> ifc	  
[14:16] <fabske> iface p4p1 inet dhcp
[14:17] <fabske> it does not get an connection..
[14:17] <fabske> ifc?
[14:19] <fabske> RoyK, what can I do?
[14:21] <RoyK> pastebin ifconfig -a
[14:21] <RoyK> !pastebin | fabske
[14:22] <RoyK> that may be a little hard without a network connection, though :P
[14:24] <fabske> i can just copy the text manually..
[14:24] <RoyK> fabske: two NICs? is that for routing/firewalling?
[14:25] <RoyK> and if so, are you sure which is which?
[14:25] <fabske> i am sure!
[14:26] <fabske> and now it works!!!
[14:26] <fabske> i can ping my laptop!
[14:26] <RoyK> :)
[14:26] <RoyK> what was wrong?
[14:26] <fabske> but i cannot ping web.de
[14:26] <fabske> i am sure it changed eth1 to p4p1 last week and tried..
[14:26] <fabske> this time i did again and now it works..
[14:26] <RoyK> not all websites allow ICMP ECHO
[14:26] <RoyK> I can't ping web.de eitheer
[14:27] <RoyK> oh
[14:27] <RoyK> I can
[14:27] <fabske> now i need to add nameservers
[14:27] <fabske> how can i add the nameservers?
[14:28] <RoyK> fabske: normally 'dns-nameservers' in the interface block in interfaces
[14:29] <RoyK> and dns-search for listing search domains
[14:29] <fabske> i have a bridge br0
[14:29] <fabske> in my interfaces
[14:29] <fabske> it is ok to add it there?
[14:29] <fabske> until now it wasnt there
[14:38] <RoyK> do you need a bridge?
[14:38] <RoyK> if not, why is it there? ;)
[14:43] <fabske> i need a bridge
[14:43] <fabske> because i have virtual servers their
[14:43] <fabske> ok, it works! :)
[14:43] <fabske> but i cannot connect by ssh :(
[14:53] <RoyK> fabske: pastebin output of ifconfig
[15:12] <xop> Hello. I am hosting a website behind a nat router and i tried port fowarding port 80 to the hosting server but all http request from all devices from my network ended up going to the server (all 404ed). How can I get around with this?
[15:19] <TJ-> xop: The router should only port-forward port 80 TCP arriving on the public interface, not on the private interface(s)
[15:20] <xop> sorry for sounding like a noob but i cannot see that option on web-based router config
[15:20] <xop> what category might tha comes under
[15:21] <TJ-> xop: Sorry, can't help you there, best to read the manual
[15:32] <dustinspringman> alright fellas, I'm stumped on a pptp routing problem...
[15:34] <dustinspringman> Ive got 14.04 pptp server.... I have 12.04 connected to it... I also have about a dozen routers connected to it... 14.04 can ping all the remote LANS... 12.04 cannot reach remote lans... LAN's can't reach eachother..
[15:36] <dustinspringman> when I do a tcpdump -i ppp0 icmp and run a ping from 12.04 to XYZ Lan, I see the traffic coming into the 14.04.. buuuut.... what appears to be the issue is that locally on the 14.04 routing is working, but the forwarding (although its enabled) is not.. its trying to forward packets out the eth0 instead of the appropriate pppX of the LAN it is destined for..
[15:37] <dustinspringman> i thought about POSTROUTING MASQ rules, but I don't want to masq traffic between LANs, I need it to be purely routed..
[15:37] <CripperZ> i definitely will be banned, but for those who dont understand what is happening Israel / Palestine, watch this summarize animated video. Ignore it and you be as good as killers. Imagine China conquers islands of PH, Malaysia, Japan and u go thru the same exact war - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=339032919583669  ...remember nothing is impossible, just like Russian annexed Crimea.
[15:41] <TJ-> dustinspringman: Have you scrutinised the routing tables of the 14.04 server to ensure all subnets are unique?
[15:42] <dustinspringman> TJ-: yes, numerous times.. from the 14.04 I can reach all remote LANs.. its something with the LAN-14.04-LAN forwarding or firewall or something... I see the packets from LAN1 destined for LAN2 in the 14.04 on a TCPdump, just dies out on th 14.04 as if its blocked or has no route..
[15:43] <TJ-> dustinspringman: the 12.04 host is a PPTP client connecting to a 14.04 PPP interface?
[15:44] <dustinspringman> correct
[15:44] <dustinspringman> and I can ping from 12.04 to 14.04 on the vpn subnet
[15:44] <TJ-> dustinspringman: have you done a tcpdump on the target host to see if the packets arrive there? I've seen this many times where the remote host doesn't have a route for the return path and thus no replies arrive. You're sure the packets are going astray on the PPTP server before being sent out?
[15:45] <TJ-> dustinspringman: can you pastebin "ip addr && ip route ls table all" ?
[15:46] <dustinspringman> TJ-: from which host?
[15:46] <TJ-> dustinspringman: sorry, on the PPTP server
[15:46] <dustinspringman> yeap
[15:46] <dustinspringman> TJ-: one sec
[15:48] <dustinspringman> http://pastebin.com/MqHkWWzp | checking on the remote LAN interfaces to see if packets are arriving now..
[15:48] <TJ-> dustinspringman: which subnet is the 12.04 host in?
[15:49] <dustinspringman> TJ-: Only the PPTP assigned subnet of 172.31.254.0/24.. specifically .199
[15:50] <TJ-> dustinspringman: so, ppp4 ?
[15:50] <dustinspringman> that server has no LAN hosts, so I have nothing to route back to it aside from snmp and icmp traffic.. so the 12.04 effectively connects to the 14.04 to look at the remote LANs for monitoring... (just a looking glass, not a participant in any lan functions)
[15:50] <dustinspringman> TJ-: correct, ppp4 as of now (those are assigned dynamically in the config FTR)
[15:52] <dustinspringman> TJ-: waaaaaaaaiiiiittttttt a minute...... WTH... i've not changed anything and it's working now..... what in that actual f#ck.!
[15:52] <dustinspringman> i'm reaching 172.16.199.0/24 subnet from the 12.04 now without issue....
[15:53] <dustinspringman> TJ-: Ah ha! You were right sir!! It was the return route issue!! the others don't have the return route yet, only the x.x.199.0/24 does! that appears to be the common denominator!
[15:53] <TJ-> aha! seen that so many times I've learned to check that first :)
[15:55] <dustinspringman> TJ-: ya know.. i should have known that.. .I've run into that before.... I just completely spaced it!! Been working on this for hours!
[15:55] <TJ-> Yup, that's happened to me... the 'clues' from the server are deceiving
[15:55] <dustinspringman> TJ-: I gues sometimes you just need a fresh pair of eyes! Thanks for the help man!
[15:56] <TJ-> I generally tcpdump the outgoing interface to ensure packets are heading to the target, and if nothing comes back, I'm pretty sure its a routing issue at the far end
[15:56] <dustinspringman> TJ-: indeed! very deceiving because it acts like a firewall issue.. doesn't give you crap.. it would be nice if there was some sort of "no route to host" message spat back at you like "no return route from host".. I guess there's probably issues with doing that or the ITF would have done it by now...
[15:57] <dustinspringman> TJ-: that's right were I was in my debug when I jumped on here... You just sped me up quite a bit
[15:59] <TJ-> dustinspringman: I assume the target was routing the replies out on its default interface ... as it ought to ... and therefore the next-hop router would be the one saying "no route to host"
[16:01] <dustinspringman> TJ-: true true.. or on some ISP's, where they use 172's for management, I could have been sending packets to a device or network that exists but is firewalled... I've done that before too.. Worst is when the devices on their network respond to icmp but have no discernable services open that can tell you what the damn thing is! That's always fun trying to figure out "is that mine? no, thats not mine, is it?"... had th
[16:02] <TJ-> :)
[16:22] <dustinspringman> TJ-: Thanks again for the help man, I'm gonna take a break for a bit then finish adding the routes to the remote lans. Take it easy man
[21:18] <RoyK> damn dihydrogenmonooxide
[21:18] <RoyK> makes us die
[21:20] <bekks> We need to prohibit it, actually.