[06:27] <cpaelzer> good morning
[07:00] <lordievader> Good morning
[07:39] <cpaelzer> g'morning lordievader
[07:39] <cpaelzer> better late than never :-)
[07:54] <lordievader> Hey cpaelzer
[07:54] <lordievader> How are you doing?
[07:54] <cpaelzer> the same as always I guess (today doesn't feel special)
[07:54] <cpaelzer> and you?
[07:55] <lordievader> Doing good here, got coffee
[09:07] <law> hey all, when installing Xenial over net-install (iPXE) in UEFI mode, the installer seems to run just fine, but I get a black screen post-boot (right where GRUB should be)
[09:07] <law> is there a preferred way to net-install Xenial in UEFI?
[09:09] <law> I don't believe it's a hardware problem, because I can BIOS-compat-mode install just fine
[09:09] <law> this is on a Dell R630
[09:09] <zioproto> hello
[09:10] <zioproto> How could I figure out if the kernel package 4.4.0.116.122 from xenial-proposed includes the fix from LP 1738219 ?
[13:28] <ZombyWoof> I want to install Ubuntu server and afterwards install a desktop env. When I don't start the GUI (but it is present on the system) will the server still be less lean than without the installed GUI? I'm talking about procesor time, not disk space.
[13:32] <patdk-lap> yes
[13:32] <patdk-lap> there are non-gui parts that desktop installs
[13:33] <patdk-lap> will it be noticable? shouldn't be
[13:33] <rbasak> "install a desktop env" will install those though
[13:33] <rbasak> Depends on what you mean exactly by "start the GUI".
[13:34] <rbasak> If you're asking if boot time (in terms of CPU) will be less what you don't "start the GUI", then the answer is obviously yes.
[13:34] <ZombyWoof> it's for a home nas, but from time to time i want to be able to browse and other things, because the computer is in another room where there are no kids, so piecefull and quite :D
[13:34] <ZombyWoof> so in normal mode i only want it to be in console mode
[13:35] <rbasak> Why?
[13:35] <rbasak> What benefit is there to it being in console mode?
[13:35] <ZombyWoof> it stays on the whole day, so I think it's a waste of energy if it consumes (lot) more because I intalled the desktop packages
[13:35] <rbasak> It won't use any more energy on an ongoing basis.
[13:36] <rbasak> Waiting on a desktop login screen should use no additional CPU whatsoever.
[13:36] <ZombyWoof> good, even if it stays in GUI mode?
[13:36] <ZombyWoof> nice, thanks for that info
[13:36] <rbasak> You might want to measure it to be sure though. I'm not accounting for any bugs.
[13:37] <rbasak> I suppose once a minute it might bump a clock up or something. But that'd probably be an insigificant and unmeasureable amount of CPU in terms of energy costs.
[13:37] <ZombyWoof> hehe, it's not that big of an issue, but when the cpu starts consuming 100% more power it is
[13:37] <rbasak> It should definitely not be doing that.
[13:38] <rbasak> If it does, it's a bug.
[13:38] <rbasak> I'm not aware of any such issue though. I expect we'd get reports quite quickly if that were to happen.
[13:38] <ZombyWoof> ok, then I just leave it on GUI login. thanks for the info!
[13:40] <jamespage> coreycb: OK so I've done some further repacking on the pxc-5.7 tarball and I'm pretty happy with it - I'd like to merge jp-review-fixes into master and then upload for bionic if you're good with that?
[13:42] <coreycb> jamespage: i think so. did you see my latest change to xtrabackup for boost?
[13:43] <coreycb> jamespage: i still need to test that ^
[13:43] <jamespage> coreycb: I had not
[13:45] <coreycb> jamespage: your latest changes look good. I think we just need to align the boost changes.
[13:48] <patdk-lap>  firefox is always using 100% cpu :(
[18:02] <coreycb> jamespage: i'm working through the rc2's
[18:03] <jamespage> coreycb: good man
[18:03] <jamespage> coreycb: I've tested my latest pxc-57 - works OK - slightly unhappy with the internal server versioning
[18:05] <jamespage> coreycb: but its the same as with -56 so not going to stress - that's polish now...
[18:06] <coreycb> jamespage: ok
[18:19] <jamespage> coreycb, cpaelzer: ovs 2.9.0 uploaded to bionic btw
[18:19] <coreycb> jamespage: awesome
[18:53] <cpaelzer> great jamespage
[18:54] <cpaelzer> jamespage: I see no new OVS in proposed btw
[18:54] <cpaelzer> ok it is the arm build that stalls
[18:54] <cpaelzer> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openvswitch/2.9.0-0ubuntu1 seems good so far
[19:06] <Tulitomaatti> any good guesses why gbit ethernet seems to give only ~400-500mbits/s on 16.04.3 servers? same switch with same cables/ports have been tested to get ~940mbits/s between my laptop and a debian host. ...can it be that the NICs are just crappy?
[19:06] <Tulitomaatti> (all cables less than 2m long, cat5e or cat6)
[19:08] <Tulitomaatti> i found some threads on the r8169 driver being buggy, but those mainly seem to roll about getting 1000mbit link speed negotiated to start with.
[19:08] <Tulitomaatti> ethtool is showing full duplex and 1000 speed just fine.
[19:16] <sarnold> Tulitomaatti: realtek isn't know for high-quality drivers :/  how are you testing? maybe you need larger window sizes or similar?
[19:17] <Tulitomaatti> default iperf with plain -s / -c. though, those do get me 940 between other devices than the 4 identical nodes i'm debugging.
[19:22] <Tulitomaatti> lshw shows that the NIC is on a "82801 Mobile PCI Bridge" instead of the other stuff on "NM10/ICH7 Family PCI Express Port 1"
[19:23] <Tulitomaatti> could a mobo maker slam a gbit nic on a bus that is slower than gbit? sounds unlikely. iperf to localhost gives over 5gbits/s.
[19:32] <sarnold> I'd certainly hope a pci bridge could keep up with gigabit, that's pretty slow these days .. but maybe if they figured the average internet connection is 30mbps that no one would notice :(
[19:36] <ahasenack> Tulitomaatti: could the spectre fixes have anything to do with the degraded performance?
[19:36] <ahasenack> do you have data from before those updates? Or, do the machines which perform better have these security fixes applied?
[19:38] <Tulitomaatti> i installed these about last week, so no data there. IIRC these atoms are old enough not to be affected by one of those bugs.
[19:38] <Tulitomaatti> (d2550)
[19:39] <Tulitomaatti> i guess i could try to boot to a live system of something else and see if the problem persists.
[19:39] <ahasenack> yes
[19:39] <Tulitomaatti> any recommendations?
[19:39] <ahasenack> whatever debian and your laptop are running that gave you 940mbps?
[19:43] <Tulitomaatti> os x on the laptop. but i guess debian should be fine as the server that works with 940 with the laptop is debian.
[19:43] <Tulitomaatti> was asking just in case a some kind of ultimate network debugging image livedistro was floating around, that i didn't know about.
[19:53] <sdeziel> Tulitomaatti: I'm fairly certain that those old atom boxes are affected by meltdown at least so there is KPTI that could get in the way
[19:56] <Tulitomaatti> mm. – the debian server is an even older atom (d510? pineview?).  that being said, is there an easy way to see? iperf seems to take about... 56% cpu according to top, while transmitting.
[19:57] <Tulitomaatti> (on one of the ubuntu nodes)
[21:24] <Pinkamena_D> I have a server acting as nfs client. I want to mount /home to a location in a nfs drive [server:/opt/home] , But the root of the nfs drive will be elsewhere [server:/opt mounted to client:/opt]. Should I have two lines in fstab, one for the /opt mount and one for the /opt/home mount, or should I have only the /opt mount, and symlink /home to the location inside?
[21:34] <Tulitomaatti> seems like it's not ubuntu-specific, or 4.13.0 specific: an ubuntu live image with 4.9.0 kernel also gets only "half" of the bandwidth that should be there.
[21:34] <Tulitomaatti> i'm starting to guess at either crappy NIC or horrible drivers. or both.
[22:00] <ahasenack> Pinkamena_D: if I uncerstood you correctly, you are exporting both /opt and /opt/home separatedly from the server?
[22:00] <ahasenack> or is that part of the question, if you should?
[22:11] <Pinkamena_D> ahasenack: part of the question
[22:11] <ahasenack> I think I would mount both separatedly on the client
[22:11] <Pinkamena_D> First instinct would be to use a symlink to home, but I am struggling to think how exactly to create it onto a location I can not overwrite /home
[22:12] <Pinkamena_D> Ok, I guess that is a logical solution
[22:12] <ahasenack> try it out, maybe the experiment will give you more data
[22:12] <ahasenack> you could also change the user's default homedir to be /opt/home
[22:12] <Pinkamena_D> I am not in control of the server directly, but I found I can just mount two location like that when just the outer mountpoint is presented explicitly on the server
[22:13] <Pinkamena_D> so it definitly 'works', I just wanted to check best practice
[22:14] <ahasenack> so the server is exporting just /opt?
[22:14] <Pinkamena_D> yes
[22:14] <ahasenack> but you can mount server:/opt/home /home ?
[22:14] <Pinkamena_D> yup
[22:14] <ahasenack> interesting, I didn't know that
[22:14] <Pinkamena_D> Is that not supposed to work? Not sure lol
[22:14] <Pinkamena_D> I guess good to learn
[22:15] <ahasenack> how do you know the server is exporting just /opt, you checked its /etc/exports file?
[22:15] <ahasenack> or did you run showmount against it? showmount -e iirc
[22:16] <Pinkamena_D> no, I just trusted the server admin about it. I will look up how to use showmount to satifsy curiousity...
[22:16] <Pinkamena_D> can it work from the client?
[22:17] <ahasenack> it's supposed to
[22:20] <Pinkamena_D> I see a result like "/opt *" So I guess that answers it