[01:33] <teward> any of our glorious server team devels around to answer a question?
[01:38] <Patrickdk> !ask
[01:39] <teward> Patrickdk: it's developer-specific - getting an FTBFS on the powerpc build of the nginx merge that just got uploaded, looks like it's unrelated to code issues, but i wanted a second opinion - https://launchpadlibrarian.net/193675980/buildlog_ubuntu-vivid-powerpc.nginx_1.6.2-5ubuntu1_FAILEDTOBUILD.txt.gz
[01:40] <teward> looks like maybe a ddebs issue, but not entirely sure
[01:42] <teward> also asked in -devel but got nothing back
[01:42] <teward> i'm not that worried about powerpc though
[01:44] <rsully> when I run a livecd/liveusb does it load the OS into ram, or does it actually boot and run from the physical media?
[01:45] <rsully> whoops probably should have been on plain #ubuntu, but either way
[06:36] <MrZhi> Hey, is it possible to do an install of server over top something else like fedora core? Like would it import existing data? I'm googling and have been up for 18 hours so far with a long night ahead so any quick guidance is appreciated
[07:37] <Tobbe_> Good morning everyone, I have a quick question as I am quite new to working with ubuntu and setting up a server (ubuntu server 14.04). So far i've reinstalled it 5 times due to various errors and now I am doing things block by block then verifying that it don't throw errors by rebooting. Is there a way to run the same checks that is done during boot (ie. check the load network [ ok ] styled tests etc. without rebooting?
[08:46] <blackyboy> Which software can do a incremental backup in ubuntu server, I want to do incremental backup from my ubuntu server to Amazon s3, i have tried with backup gem but it's gives lot of problem. Any other software which can provide tar incremental to s3 ?
[08:53] <andol> blackyboy: If you are fine with the classic model of full and incremental backups, then duplicity isn't a bad choice. It supports backing up directly to S3, and it does encryption.
[08:54] <blackyboy> andol: thanks let me have a look into it. :)
[11:53] <ElfBot> Anyone mind having a really quick look at my DNS file and see if they can spot the issue? http://pastebin.com/sFCgWD5A
[13:53] <johncarper> I've made a special FTP user on my server that's running vsftpd with a chroot jail and made a folder "FTP-shared" in the /home directory with the FTP user access to /home/FTP-shared and selected /bin/false inside the FTP-shared folder I have a folder download with chmod 755 and upload with chmod 777
[13:53] <johncarper> is the upload folder with chmod 777 a security risk on my server in this scenario?
[15:42] <bananapie> my ISP has given me an IP and a subnet ( the subnet is a /30 , so one IP and one gateway ). I only have 1 server with 1 network card. Is there anyway I can set up the subnet so I can run services on the IP in the subnet without a router or second server? I was thinking maybe with a virtual interface or something
[16:15] <pmatulis> bananapie: give a concrete example of what you actually want to achieve, without the mumbo jumbo
[16:19] <bananapie> actually, I really don't know how to make it more concrete. I think what I want to do is impossible and I have to drive back to the data centre and install a router.
[16:19] <bananapie> :(
[16:53] <maxb> bananapie: Try explaining what you actually want to do instead of what you think you need to do to acheive that
[16:54] <maxb> It sounds to me like what you need to do is precisely nothing, not go buy a router
[17:34] <vexati0n> hey -- i have an ubuntu 14.04 server with 2 NICs. until now, the 2nd nic has been inactive, but i need to assign it an address. i edit /etc/network/interfaces, then ifup eth1, and i get the IP correctly. but 30-60 seconds later, the system removes the IP and leaves the interface unconfigured
[17:34] <vexati0n> i need to fix this *without* rebooting
[17:46] <dasjoe> vexati0n: find out why it's deconfiguring the interface. /var/log/syslog or kern.log should help
[18:06] <bananapie> ok pmatulis and maxb, i'll try again.
[18:07] <bananapie> I have a server that is connected to a new internet connection. They gave me two IPs. One is the IP that can reach the ISP's gateway, the other is an IP that I have to route via the first IP. I don't want to install a router.
[18:08] <maxb> You mean they gave you two subnets?
[18:08] <bananapie> so on the one interface, I have IP 192.168.20.150 on a /30. The ISP's gateway is 192.168.20.149. My second IP is 192.168.20.1 it's also a /30.
[18:08] <bananapie> yes
[18:09] <bananapie> so normally, I would have to install a router to use the IP 192.168.20.1 and 192.168.20.2, but I don't want to install a router. Can I just stick 192.168.20.1 on a virtual interface and the kernel will pretend to route it via 192.168.20.150 ?
[18:09] <maxb> Do you actually mean they gave you those IPs, or are you anonymising them?
[18:10] <maxb> Those are rfc1918 private IPs, so not reachable from the internet
[18:11] <bananapie> I know they are "private" IPs. So the server on their end has a firewall that will only allow packets from 192.168.20.1, but their modem/router is expecting 192.168.20.150 on the connected NIC.
[18:12] <bananapie> I think if I set ip_forward in the kernel to 1 and I set both IPs on a network card, the kernel will figure it out.
[18:13] <maxb> That's a pretty weird setup they've given you
[18:13] <bananapie> yes.
[18:13] <maxb> Setting ip_forward is irrelevant if you've just got the one machine
[18:14] <bananapie> Normally, I should stick a router in their that has 192.168.20.150 on one side with a default gw of 192.168.20.149 / 255.255.255.252. and on the other side of the router 192.168.20.2 and my server connected to this interface with 192.168.20.1
[18:14] <bananapie> but I don't want to install a router.
[18:14] <qman> That is an impossible configuration
[18:14] <qman> Oh wait, /30
[18:15] <bananapie> No. it's not impossible. It's confusing because they subnetted a 'private' subnet
[18:15] <qman> Why do you need both at all then?
[18:16] <qman> The one that's connected to the isp side should be all you need
[18:16] <bananapie> ok
[18:16] <bananapie> thanks
[18:16] <qman> In your theoretical router setup
[18:19] <maxb> I can't figure out what this ISP is trying to accomplish. I guess I'd first try to see if I could actually talk to the internet using the .150 IP as the source
[18:19] <bananapie> ok. It works. so I did this 'ifconfig eth4:1 192.168.20.1 subnet 255.255.255.252' ; 'ifconfig eth4 192.168.20.150 192.168.20.1'; 'route add default gw 192.168.20.149' and everything works. I can ping using ping -I 192.168.20.1 [ any ip here ]
[18:20] <bananapie> thanks.
[18:20] <qman> This is a really weird setup, and I can think of a couple possible scenarios, but they'd be really silly
[18:20] <bananapie> ok, the above commands seem to work.
[18:20] <bananapie> thanks guys
[19:19] <Annoyed> Greetings
[19:24] <Annoyed> Quick question about the isc-dhcp-server config file.   It has a commented out declaration for a 10.* subnet "subnet 10.152.187.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 "  with a comment above it that it won't be used. "
[19:26] <Annoyed> Anyone know what that's about?
[22:28] <kriskropd> I accidentally stopped a do-release-upgrade in the middle of reconfiguring samba on an LTS box - the machine thinks it is running the latest stable LTS now, however about 60 packages now have errors within them and I don't know how to fix them - I've tried 'sudp apt-get update; sudo dpkg --configure -a;sudo apt-get update' but that ends with the last apt-get update failing due to "Processing was halted because there were too many ...
[22:28] <kriskropd> ... errors." which it states after listing the 60 or so packages that seem to be damaged