[00:30] <apw> Noskcaj, that might be a plymouth issue which just got fixed
[00:32] <TJ-> 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] <TJ-> 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] <apw> TJ-, xenial should have zfs built-in though
[01:02] <apw> TJ-, i would expect 4.2.8 to be in the next upload, but that is likely 5 weeks out
[01:02] <TJ-> apw: I didn't know that; I'll tell the user next time they pop up :)
[01:03] <TJ-> Yes, I thought it'd be next month for 4.2.8.
[14:34] <PETSounds> Hi. Which kernel version best for Intel Skylake?
[14:39] <PETSounds> 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] <apw> 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] <apw> 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] <PETSounds> apw: thanks for your response. What do i need to do to make Broadcom driver doesn't stop working when upgrading Kernel? 
[14:50] <apw> PETSounds, bcmwl ?
[14:51] <PETSounds> i upgraded
[14:51] <PETSounds> i upgraded the kernel from http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/?C=N;O=D and WLAN stops working
[14:51] <apw> 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] <apw> PETSounds, note i am talking about the ubuntu archive xenial 4.3 kernel not the ones in mainline-build respository
[14:53] <PETSounds> apw: ahh ok. thank you. i'll try again and report back.
[15:19] <yoasif> any chance anyone can tell me when we can expect a new kernel based on http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1527359 ?
[15:20] <yoasif> 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] <apw> 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] <TJ-> 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] <apw> 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] <TJ-> s/apq/apw/
[15:22] <yoasif> 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] <apw> (the bug gives me something to publish against
[15:22] <yoasif> (the issue has been fixed in mainline http://kernel.ubuntu.com/%7Ekernel-ppa/mainline/v4.2.8-wily/
[15:23] <apw> 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] <yoasif> yeah :/
[15:23] <apw> everything is in the linux-image which exists
[15:23] <apw> 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] <yoasif> 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] <apw> xenials kernel contains the zfs bits nativly, but it might be simpler
[15:24] <apw> for you to have a test kernel from me, which would sit version wise in the middle and upgrade correctly when
[15:24] <apw> the real distro kernel comes out
[15:25] <apw> if everything you need is in the .8 update
[15:25] <yoasif> apw: i'd really appreciate that — but i'd need -extras too, since aufs isn't in mainline :/
[15:25] <apw> yoasif, extras comes out as part of the build automatically for the ubuntu builds
[15:26] <yoasif> right now i'm running mainline, but i can't run docker, so i don't have any services running ;)
[15:26] <yoasif> (been replacing disks on my btrfs raid, and the hard lockups were really annoying) 
[15:27] <apw> yep those are only there for problem isolation, they aren't production quality by any means
[15:30] <yoasif> apw: so if you were to create a test kernel, would i be able to have aufs as a module (easily)? 
[15:30] <apw> yes, it would be an intermim build just the same as if i had uploaded the current state of the tree
[15:31] <apw> yoasif, i assume you are needing an x86 kernel of one size or other
[15:31] <yoasif> x64, yeah
[15:38] <yoasif> 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] <apw> yoasif, well that is btrfs, that well known awsome filesystem
[15:41] <yoasif> 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] <yoasif> also built the array prior to zfs being available in ubuntu without ppas
[15:43] <apw> 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] <yoasif> been experiencing this issue for weeks now, even decided to build a new machine for it (not that i'm complaining) 
[15:45] <yoasif> 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] <yoasif> (running ext4 on top of lvm for my root though) 
[15:46] <apw> yeah i am old school most of my boxes are whatever ordinary filesystems on top of lvm
[15:46] <apw> 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] <yoasif> 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] <yoasif> never lost data with zfs though, been using an array for years now, even with bad disks
[15:49] <yoasif> (should have scrubbed again and again before trying fsck)
[15:49] <apw> fsck on btrfs has a bit of a reputation for being worse than not bothering
[15:50] <apw> and hoping for the best ...
[15:50] <yoasif> well, the mailing list is great … "if you don't have backups, you clearly didn't care about the data"
[15:50] <yoasif> (which is true, but doesn't change the fact that this shouldn't happen) 
[15:50] <apw> yoasif, such an inspiring position :)
[15:53] <apw> yoasif, http://people.canonical.com/~apw/stable-4.2.8-wily/
[15:53] <yoasif> 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] <yoasif> 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] <yoasif> (no docker means no openvpn either ;) )
[15:55] <apw> yoasif, my nick is always arround, my body less reliably, but yeah let me know if that gets you going again
[15:55] <yoasif> apw: definitely will do