[00:30] Noskcaj, that might be a plymouth issue which just got fixed [00:32] apw: quick Q on behalf of a user: when is the Wily kernel matching the 4.2.8 stable mainline due? There's some BTRFS bugs the user has suffered from [00:33] User relies on AUFS too for LXC/LXD so can't simply switch to a mainline build. I suggests the Xenial 4.3.3 but that breaks user's ZFS DKMS module builds :) [01:01] TJ-, xenial should have zfs built-in though [01:02] TJ-, i would expect 4.2.8 to be in the next upload, but that is likely 5 weeks out [01:02] apw: I didn't know that; I'll tell the user next time they pop up :) [01:03] Yes, I thought it'd be next month for 4.2.8. === _fortis_ is now known as _fortis [14:34] Hi. Which kernel version best for Intel Skylake? [14:39] i am currently on WIly kernel, but the performance is not that smooth. Just wonder if upgrading Kernel and Intel Graphics driver will improve the performance. [14:47] PETSounds, hmmm, well vivid was the first one to have any kind of support and that was backported, wily is intended to have native support [14:47] PETSounds, that said, it is very new even there, so you might find the xenial 4.3 kernel has some benefits, and we would be interested if so [14:49] apw: thanks for your response. What do i need to do to make Broadcom driver doesn't stop working when upgrading Kernel? [14:50] PETSounds, bcmwl ? [14:51] i upgraded [14:51] i upgraded the kernel from http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/?C=N;O=D and WLAN stops working [14:51] PETSounds, very likely, if it is bcmwl, you would want to get a copy of that from xenial as well as that is sync'd with the kernel in xenial [14:52] PETSounds, note i am talking about the ubuntu archive xenial 4.3 kernel not the ones in mainline-build respository [14:53] apw: ahh ok. thank you. i'll try again and report back. === cyphermox_ is now known as cyphermox [15:19] any chance anyone can tell me when we can expect a new kernel based on http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1527359 ? [15:19] Launchpad bug 1527359 in linux (Ubuntu Wily) "Wily update to v4.2.8 stable release" [Undecided,Confirmed] [15:20] looking for fixes http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/ubuntu/ubuntu-wily.git/commit/?h=master-next&id=c7c784296cf04c0757f39aa00c77d12a4f2a5548 and http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/ubuntu/ubuntu-wily.git/commit/?h=master-next&id=9e0d373b6959298b9a07cb2975d04a7aac7e0e23 [15:20] yoasif, that is already applied to master-next so it should be in the next sru cycle, which is about 5 weeks out with xmas in the way [15:21] yoasif: aha, I asked apq about this last night. You should be able to use the Xenial kernel since it has the ZFS driver built-in - no need for the DKMS [15:21] yoasif, is there a bug filed for your specific issue, is so i could spin you up a test kernel to confirm that the update is what you need [15:21] s/apq/apw/ [15:22] apw: ouch — so right now i'm running the mainline build from the kernel ppa page but there's no -extras package (so no aufs and docker doesn't work)… any chance there's an easy way to build an extras package for the mainline kernel? [15:22] (the bug gives me something to publish against [15:22] (the issue has been fixed in mainline http://kernel.ubuntu.com/%7Ekernel-ppa/mainline/v4.2.8-wily/ [15:23] yoasif, there are no extras packages for mainline builds, it is disabled, which means everything is builtin, but aufs is not in mainline so you don't get that [15:23] yeah :/ [15:23] everything is in the linux-image which exists [15:23] i can buid you a test kernel against that tip to use till the official one comes out in the new year if that is of use [15:24] but i should be able to use xenial's kernel with that extras package for the time being (since zfs is built in?) [15:24] xenials kernel contains the zfs bits nativly, but it might be simpler [15:24] for you to have a test kernel from me, which would sit version wise in the middle and upgrade correctly when [15:24] the real distro kernel comes out [15:25] if everything you need is in the .8 update [15:25] apw: i'd really appreciate that — but i'd need -extras too, since aufs isn't in mainline :/ [15:25] yoasif, extras comes out as part of the build automatically for the ubuntu builds [15:26] right now i'm running mainline, but i can't run docker, so i don't have any services running ;) [15:26] (been replacing disks on my btrfs raid, and the hard lockups were really annoying) [15:27] yep those are only there for problem isolation, they aren't production quality by any means [15:30] apw: so if you were to create a test kernel, would i be able to have aufs as a module (easily)? [15:30] yes, it would be an intermim build just the same as if i had uploaded the current state of the tree [15:31] yoasif, i assume you are needing an x86 kernel of one size or other [15:31] x64, yeah [15:38] apw: the mainline build is actually more "production quality" (in that it doesn't lock up) than the stable ubuntu build besides the fact that i don't have aufs as a module ;) [15:40] yoasif, well that is btrfs, that well known awsome filesystem [15:41] apw: i'm on the hype train for it… not as stable as zfs yet, but feature wise, it allows me to expand arrays without creating new vdevs — it's going to be fantastic once it is stable, but definitely experiencing some growing pains [15:42] also built the array prior to zfs being available in ubuntu without ppas [15:43] yoasif, "once" it is stable, it is years old now, it reallly should be there by now if it is going to be [15:43] * apw strokes his ext4 filessytem gently, good filesystem [15:44] been experiencing this issue for weeks now, even decided to build a new machine for it (not that i'm complaining) [15:45] never quite understood lvm (i should learn) and i was used to zfs, so been using btrfs; ext4 was never an option for this [15:45] (running ext4 on top of lvm for my root though) [15:46] yeah i am old school most of my boxes are whatever ordinary filesystems on top of lvm [15:46] which i am now at least at some kind of agreement with, it doesn't mess with me too much and i don't ask it to change much [15:48] well, there are supposed to be integrity guarantees with btrfs; unfortunately, i have lost data once with btrfs (ran a fsck on an array where one of the disks had dropped out and seen subsequent writes — destroyed the array for the most part) [15:48] never lost data with zfs though, been using an array for years now, even with bad disks [15:49] (should have scrubbed again and again before trying fsck) [15:49] fsck on btrfs has a bit of a reputation for being worse than not bothering [15:50] and hoping for the best ... [15:50] well, the mailing list is great … "if you don't have backups, you clearly didn't care about the data" [15:50] (which is true, but doesn't change the fact that this shouldn't happen) [15:50] yoasif, such an inspiring position :) [15:53] yoasif, http://people.canonical.com/~apw/stable-4.2.8-wily/ [15:53] but yeah, in case anyone wanted some unsolicited advice; do not fsck your btrfs array… try to do as many online scrubs as you can until you don't see errors [15:54] apw: not local to my machine right now, but i *really* appreciate you taking the time… will report back tomorrow morning (or tonight if you are around) [15:54] (no docker means no openvpn either ;) ) [15:55] yoasif, my nick is always arround, my body less reliably, but yeah let me know if that gets you going again [15:55] apw: definitely will do