[02:19] <twb> I need a quick sanity check, please -- I have a server with linux-image-2.6.32-64-virtual installed, but uname -a is saying 2.6.32-64-server.
[02:19] <twb> Do -virtual builds normally report themselves as -server?
[02:24] <tarpman> twb: iirc, yes; and http://packages.ubuntu.com/lucid-updates/amd64/linux-image-2.6.32-65-virtual/filelist agrees
[02:24] <twb> OK, thanks
[02:25] <twb> (Didn't realize it would show up there, I was thinking it was only going into the local string in /boot/config-XXX.)
[03:57] <jetole> Hey! Is anyone in here pretty familiar with likewise open / PBIS open ?
[04:25] <Kane_> Hey, Just refered here. You guys think 14 is a good for a Avg website and website like uses no GUI etc. I think it has a 5 year support plan?
[07:22] <|\n> hey, guys! when ksplice was in beta i was testing it on my home server out of curiousity and it was amazing, now i have not-that-important production vds on kvm with 14.04 server, any hints on if its license free in this case or if it is even possible under kvm?
[07:34] <Sachiru> Does it have to be kSplice, or do you just want no-reboot updates?
[07:44] <|\n> Sachiru, the second is my end-goal, yeah! thank you for paying attention also =)
[07:44] <Sachiru> Hmm.
[07:45] <Sachiru> There are methods to achieve no-reboot updates, but they are non-trivial to apply (kExec, KernelCare, etc.)
[07:46] <|\n> Sachiru, any of them applied at least on non-critical places in production by chance?
[07:46] <Sachiru> Sure.
[07:46] <Sachiru> kExec is a standard Linux utility
[07:47] <|\n> Sachiru, thank you, gonna investigate those
[07:47] <Sachiru> Look into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kexec
[07:50] <Sachiru> Another is KernelCare, just as robust as kSplice, but less pricy
[07:53] <|\n> reading kexec unresolved issues part in canonical's manpages, seems fine so far
[08:14] <Sachiru> IMHO rebootless upgrades aren't really ideal. Want 99.999% uptime? Build a second machine and a load balancer. Consolidating everything onto one server is suicide, no matter how much you try to harden it, if it goes down (and it inevitably will) everything will go down with it.
[08:15] <|\n> how about backups? =)
[08:16] <Sachiru> A backup will not prevent service interruption.
[08:16] <Sachiru> Load-balancing and redundancy will.
[08:16] <|\n> it is not critical box
[08:16] <|\n> and you are totally right
[08:16] <Sachiru> Backups are there to recover from failure. Redundancy is there to *prevent* failure
[12:10] <Vladimir> Maybe wrong channel, but I wonder if there's a command to check what devices my packets go to first in my layer 2 network from ubuntu server machine?
[12:10] <rbasak> Vladimir: tcpdump?
[12:10] <Vladimir> oh okey
[12:10] <Vladimir> =)
[12:11] <rbasak> There's an option to show you MAC addresses.
[12:12] <Vladimir> arp -a?
[12:13] <Vladimir> arp -a seems to show the last mac address, I need the first hop mac adress
[12:14] <lordievader> Vladimir: traceroute?
[12:18] <Vladimir> lordievader: I tried it also
[12:18] <lordievader> That will at least report the routers in between source and destination.
[12:21] <Vladimir> lordievader: yeah but it'
[12:21] <rbasak> First hop mac address?
[12:21] <Vladimir> it's a Layer 2 network
[12:21] <rbasak> You mean a layer 2 hop there?
[12:21] <Vladimir> so no routers invovlved
[12:21] <rbasak> Or a layer 3 hop?
[12:21] <Vladimir> layer 2 hop
[12:21] <lordievader> Ah, right.
[12:22] <rbasak> I'm not sure that's possible. Switches hide that from you as part of the Ethernet protocol.
[12:22] <rbasak> You might be able to get something out of spanning tree protocol or something like that though.
[12:22] <rbasak> A server just isn't aware of what's on the first hop. Switches don't even have to have MAC addresses.
[12:23] <Vladimir> thing is, we have a wifi controller in the network, and want to know if the packets go through it or not since the server is on the WIFI for the moment
[12:23] <Vladimir> I better ask on another channel, no worries=)
[12:24] <rbasak> Get a switch with a mirror port (or a hub), put it "in the way" and use tcpdump on the mirror port.
[12:25] <rbasak> Or used managed switches and query them for their MAC address tables.
[12:28] <Vladimir> rbasak: thanks=)
[13:08] <halvors> Hi! I need to be able to login to my ubuntu-server using Active Directory login credentials. Is there a easy way to implement this?
[13:38] <Mississauga> any reason for NOT installing latest server version? empty hard disk?
[13:39] <Mississauga> is it safer to go with an older version, say 13.x ?
[13:39] <Pici> Mississauga: If you need to go with an older release, at least pick 12.04 LTS.
[13:42] <Mississauga> I rather go with 14.04 but I wondered if there are bugs
[13:44] <cfhowlett> Mississauga, 14.04 has reached release point .1      and I've heard few complaints in #ubuntu-server
[13:45] <lordievader> For me it has been very stable so far.
[13:49] <cemc> hi. I have ubuntu server 14.04 installed, with eth0 dhcp. I'm trying to set my own static DNS servers, disregarding the DHCP ones. I created /etc/resolv.conf file (not a symlink to resolvconf) but it still gets overwritten at reboot
[13:57] <RoyK> Mississauga: 12.04 is an LTS and is good. 14.04 is also an LTS and has been out for a while and is also good
[13:57] <RoyK> Mississauga: 13.04 and 13.10 are *not* LTS releases and shouldn't be used on servers (IMO)
[13:57] <RoyK> Mississauga: I'd use 14.04 if I were to install ubuntu on a new server
[13:58] <lordievader> 13.04 and 13.10 are EOL.
[13:59]  * RoyK knows
[13:59] <lordievader> Mississauga might not ;)
[13:59] <RoyK> anyway, I wouldn't use 14.10 on a server either, when it gets released
[14:01] <Mississauga> so I guess 14.04 ok for server
[14:03] <cfhowlett> Mississauga, 14.04.1 ??
[14:03] <RoyK> Mississauga: yes
[14:04] <Mississauga> whats that last  .1 ?
[14:04] <RoyK> Mississauga: patch level
[14:04] <RoyK> Mississauga: just use 14.04.1
[14:04] <cfhowlett> Mississauga, point release current version
[14:05] <Mississauga> I looking to buy a book on it to keep around,  anyone familiar with this book ?"Ubuntu 14.04 Lts Server: Administration and Reference"
[14:06] <Mississauga> by Richard Leland Petersen
[14:06] <cfhowlett> Mississauga, nope.  but I'd suggest "the official ubuntu server book"
[14:07] <Mississauga> so whats wrong with it?
[14:07] <hallyn> dannf: congrats :)
[14:11] <RoyK> Mississauga: he said he didn't know it, just suggested something else :P
[14:36] <dannf> hallyn: thanks! to you as well, belated :)
[17:11] <^^x^^> it's reeeeeally quite in here
[17:11] <arrrghhh> ^^x^^, it is quite quiet.
[17:15] <^^x^^> arrrghhh: were you under distress when creating that nickname? ;P
[17:16] <arrrghhh> potentially, t'was a while ago.  some sort of duress was taking place I'm sure.
[17:22] <^^x^^> :)
[17:27] <funman_> hey folks
[17:27] <funman_> is it easy to upgrade 13.04 to 14.04
[17:29] <arrrghhh> funman_, 13.04 is not LTS so you can't go directly to 14.04
[17:29] <funman_> hmm
[17:29] <funman_> my server provider offers 13.04
[17:29] <arrrghhh> you'd have to do 13.10 --> 14.04.  would be better to just do a clean install of 14.04 and stick to LTS releases
[17:29] <funman_> 14.04 is LTS?
[17:30] <arrrghhh> yes.  every 2 years - 12.04 is LTS, 14.04 is LTS
[17:30] <arrrghhh> so you can go from 12.04 -> 14.04
[17:30] <funman_> i asked them to install 14.04
[17:30] <funman_> lets see :D
[17:30] <arrrghhh> ya clean install would be better
[17:30] <funman_> if they agree
[17:30] <arrrghhh> then upgrade every 6 months or so... or just keep it on LTS releases
[17:30] <arrrghhh> I prefer LTS for my servers.
[17:31] <funman_> lol Take a picture of yourself holding a valid photo ID.
[17:32] <funman_> wtf
[17:32] <funman_> server provider responce
[17:33] <maxb_> It's perfectly valid to upgrade from 13.04 to 13.10 to 14.04. You just have to upgrade twice in succession
[17:33] <arrrghhh> I never said it was invalid... just cannot do it in one step, and a clean install would be preferred.
[17:34] <maxb> I don't think there's any reason to prefer a clean install
[17:34] <maxb> Unless there are other factors entirely separate to upgrading which make a clean install attractive
[17:35] <arrrghhh> ya, upgrades can fail.  clean installs have a better chance of working ;)
[17:35] <funman_> :P
[17:36] <maxb> A somewhat pessimistic viewpoint
[17:36] <arrrghhh> sure, but I can back it up with experience.
[17:36] <arrrghhh> IF a clean install is an option it is ALWAYS preffered IMHO.
[17:37] <arrrghhh> preferred, stupid language
[17:37] <arrrghhh> also, it would be quicker assuming he doesn't have a ton of crap in 13.04 already
[17:38] <lordievader> I'd say a clean install is a last resort. I've done many upgrades, haven't got a failed upgrade recently.
[17:38] <arrrghhh> used to happen all the time.  maybe it's gotten better, I haven't done an upgrade in a  while lol.
[17:39] <maxb> Indeed. There's little point making useless work for yourself, and rebuilding the systems installed on top of the base OS is useless work if you can easily avoid it
[17:39] <arrrghhh> I backup my config files, no big deal.
[17:40] <sarnold> upgrading through a release that has -also- hit EOL can make an upgrade really annoying
[17:40] <sarnold> especially if the mirrors have reclaimed the storage space and you're forced to use old-releases or whatever
[17:40] <maxb> Upgrades very rarely fail. Sometimes they run into issues requiring a little more manual intervention than would be preferred, but that's still usually less work than clean install. This isn't Windows, after all :-)
[17:40] <arrrghhh> well, there's that too ^^ if you're on a really old release
[17:41] <arrrghhh> maxb, and maybe on the server platform that is true.  all of my terrible upgrade experiences have occurred on the desktop platform.
[17:41] <sarnold> funman_: please ask the provider to take down the 13.04 and 13.10 options -- this chart may be useful in convincing them :)  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases
[17:41] <arrrghhh> x1,000 ^^
[17:41] <funman_> lol
[17:41] <maxb> I had a desktop that I upgraded every six months for about four years, with very little problems.
[17:42] <arrrghhh> maxb, it got better after 10.04 I noticed.
[17:42] <arrrghhh> which, was 4 years ago :/  crap I'm getting old
[17:42] <maxb> I started with 6.06 :-)
[17:42] <arrrghhh> 7.04 haha
[17:43] <maxb> Though I do acknowledge other people in my office seem to have more problems than I do.
[17:43] <arrrghhh> ya maybe it was customized crap I was doing.  dunno, my parents machines I haven't had much issue upgrading.
[18:04] <^^x^^> time to work. Hasta luego
[19:21] <^^x^^> crap, when I run apache2ctl as normal user apache says it can't read a particular apache2.conf file but if I run the command as root everything is fine??
[19:21] <sarnold> ^^x^^: check ls -lad for every directory in the path and then the final file; make sure the unix permissions allow the user to read the file and traverse the directories, if that's the goal..
[19:22] <^^x^^> sarnold: yes, it's the goal. I wasn't sure I needed to provide permission across the whole path
[19:22] <^^x^^> but I want to know why apache2ctl gives back different errors when run by user/root ¿?
[19:23] <sarnold> ^^x^^: probably just 'x' directory access is sufficient
[19:23] <^^x^^> will try right now
[19:23] <^^x^^> thanks
[19:23] <^^x^^> have the second answer? ;P
[19:23] <sarnold> probably due to the first answer :) hehe
[19:24] <^^x^^> but i don't get it, apache is run by www-data weather I check stuff with apache2ctl as root or user, right?
[19:25] <sarnold> the change to www-data is after a significant amount of processing, including opening the listening ports (80 and 443 require the CAP_NET_BIND_SERVICE capability, so it starts as root)
[19:27] <^^x^^> uhm, but I have like 10 apache2 processes
[19:27] <^^x^^> 1 as root and the rest is www-data
[19:27] <^^x^^> which one is it?
[19:30] <sarnold> ^^x^^: I -think- the one process is left running as root in case you wish to add another listening socket and reload the configuration -- if it dropped root entirely, some 'simple' changes like that would require a full restart
[19:31] <^^x^^> that makes sense
[19:31] <^^x^^> I still don't understand the apache2ctl thing
[19:32] <sarnold> it runs with whatever privileges you have when you start it
[19:32] <^^x^^> apache2ctl runs with whatever I am at that moment??
[19:32] <sarnold> when you run it as you, it gets only your privileges, which may not allow it to read all the configuration files; but when you run it as root, it can bypass the permissions if needed to read the configuration files
[19:33] <^^x^^> but that's incredibly confusing, because when I run it as a normal user it complains about permission issues but it says "apache2: bla bla" at the beginning
[19:34] <^^x^^> so what that's saying to me is that it is apache2 who has permission issues, not apache2ctl, jesus
[19:34] <^^x^^> right?
[19:35] <sarnold> ^^x^^: probably the 'apache2: ' label is just letting you know which program is complaining.
[19:36] <^^x^^> which stresses my point
[19:36] <^^x^^> :\
[19:37] <^^x^^> http://i.imgur.com/BMfcR4H.png
[19:37] <^^x^^> that's confusing to me
[19:37] <sarnold> ^^x^^: I'm confused what point you're trying to make? :)
[19:37] <^^x^^> let's try with that screencap haha
[19:41] <^^x^^> sarnold: do you not get confused by the "apache2: " there?
[19:41] <^^x^^> it really seems like apache2 is not reading that file. If that's the case, it's the thing apache2ctl should report when run as root
[19:41] <sarnold> ^^x^^: no, it's just a helpful annotation about which program didn't like the input
[19:42] <sarnold> ^^x^^: how could apache2ctl report it when run as root? the permission check is bypassed when you run it as root
[19:42] <^^x^^> sarnold: because if it is apache2 who is having the problem, is going to have it anyways. I'm running apache2ctl as root, not apache2
[19:42] <^^x^^> see what I mean?
[19:43] <^^x^^> apache2ctl is the program I'm always running, I'm not doing anything to/with apache2
[19:43] <sarnold> ^^x^^: but the /etc/init.d/apache init script runs as root and starts apache as root
[19:43] <^^x^^> but I'm not doing anything with that
[19:44] <sarnold> ^^x^^: here, this might help :)  http://sources.debian.net/src/apache2/2.4.10-1/debian/apache2ctl/?hl=47#L47
[19:44] <sarnold> ^^x^^: apache2ctl is a simple little wrapper that runs /usr/sbin/apache2 to do a lot of the actual work
[19:45] <^^x^^> oh crap, I didn't know that
[19:45] <^^x^^> xD
[19:45] <sarnold> :D
[19:46] <^^x^^> so I should run apache2ctl as www-data to really see wtf is wrong? xD
[19:46] <^^x^^> because otherwise there's always user-bias
[19:47] <sarnold> ^^x^^: well, what problem are you trying to solve? :)
[19:47] <^^x^^> i want to find out if apache2 is reading all my *.conf files
[19:48] <^^x^^> check more than "find out"
[19:57] <m_tadeu> does anyone know the difference between "sudo service xxx start" ans "sudo start xxx"?
[20:47] <Guest48535> m_tadeu: service starts older sysv scripts, while starts is for upstart ones, i think
[20:48] <m_tadeu> Guest48535: thanx...I'll look into that
[20:57] <patdk-wk> heh? service starts EVERYTHING :)
[20:58] <patdk-wk> they did create man pages for this purpose :)
[20:58] <patdk-wk> service starts an sysv or upstart script
[20:58] <patdk-wk> start starts a sysv script
[20:59] <rurkowce> i was close enough :V
[20:59] <patdk-wk> by being 50% wrong? sure :)
[21:00] <patdk-wk> I had to switch to service to handle upstart
[21:35] <m_tadeu> patdk-wk: so the way to go is "service start", correct?
[21:35] <patdk-wk> service xxxxx start
[21:35] <m_tadeu> yes
[21:45] <m_tadeu> patdk-wk: thanx a bunch for the enlightnment
[23:38] <mikal> Hi
[23:38] <mikal> Is there a cloud archive for 14.04?