[06:06] Good morning [06:20] morrn === disposable3 is now known as disposable2 [12:50] Hi. I am trying to connect remotely to a Ubuntu server. Between me and it, there is a UTM + Windows domain controller. Currently, I can get into it via Windows RDP -> Win terminal session -> Putty -> SSH. Ideally, I would like to have a graphical session via freerdp. Any config / guides that you can recommend to help? [13:10] coreycb: hey do you have any bionic-proposed updates pending testing? running a regression test now so may as well mark any other bugs pending as tested [13:11] Jenshae: erm well [13:11] Jenshae: ubuntu server does not come with any sort of graphical environment installed by default that you can connect to [13:12] SSH is the default method [13:15] jamespage: no, nothing in particular. if you're also testing queens-proposed there are security updates that need regression testing. [13:16] coreycb: I will be doing the UCA next [13:16] jamespage: great, thanks [13:16] coreycb: np [13:42] Hey guys, need some help, working on a dedicated backup server running on Ubuntu 18.04 for a client, and cannot connect to an ethernet interface named ens1f1 - it shows up under ip link show and when I do dmesg | grep 'ens1f1' - but not sure how to proceed. If I try to SSH into the machine, I get the following: nc: getaddrinfo: Servname not supported for ai_socktype [13:43] So I presume that I cannot SSH into the machine because it has no network connectivity. [13:43] I can bring up the contents of /etc/network/interfaces if needed. [14:05] aruns: does `ip a` show valid addresses for the interface? [14:08] Yes. [14:09] A static IP of 192.168.111.25 has been set for the interface. [14:09] ip a shows both 192.168.111.25/24 and 192.168.111.202/24 [14:09] For the ens1f1 interface. [14:10] Does that seem correct? [14:14] having two different IPs in the same subnet doesn't seem correct, no [14:19] why not ? you can have multiple IP's in same subnet [14:22] sure, if you do it on purpose and set up the system to know which address to use in which case [14:27] since aruns only mentioned a static IP being configured, I assumed that the second one didn't happen on purpose which leads me to believe that the configuration of the interface is not reflecting what the user wants to achieve [14:32] Yeah, it's a client server as well, they gave us carte blanche to do what we want but also a limited deadline :/ [14:35] aruns: not sure how that relates. Did you mean to give the machine two different IPs on the same subnet on the same interface? [16:34] Unexpected issue on 18.04 - adding a gretap interface also creates an erspan interface, and then "ip link del XXXX" seems to silently fail for each of the erspan/gretap/gre interfaces that were created. Anyone have experience of this or suggestions on what's going on? [18:16] jamespage: I did install LXDE and x2goserver, I can connect to it on the LAN. It is routing a connection from a remote site to it that I am struggling with. Is there some sort of config for it to listen to connection from the UTM, etc that I need to do? [18:18] Oh and on an 18.04 note, I couldn't install it via manual partitioning. I ended up using a desktop persistent USB to use gparted, then I could only install 16.04, upgraded to 18.04 and now things like NetworkManager doesn't work. [18:19] Can't remember the new thing, some nmap config thing that search results are returning? [18:24] Jenshae: there's some known issues mentioned in the release notes that might be related to your partitioning problem https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BionicBeaver/ReleaseNotes#Known_issues [18:28] sarnold: It was to do with swap space, it kept trying to grab space that I wanted to leave and use in ZFS raid and then it wanted an encrypted space but couldn't mount the partitions I allocated to it after encrypting them. That was raw. [18:29] I was trying to have Drive 1: 5.5GB for /boot, 10GB for LVM / Raid 5 /root, the rest of the space as a software raid. [18:30] Drives 2-3, the first partition was LVM swap, then I tried having the first partitions as raw. [18:34] 5.5 GB /boot ?? [18:36] um... that's huge [18:36] and a waste of space in general, I'd think === kallesbar_ is now known as kallesbar [18:37] a 10GB /root is also ... weird [18:38] nacc: I can understand a 512MB or 1GB /boot if you don't want to have to autoremove old kernels regularly, but 5GB is obscene :| [18:38] teward: agreed [18:41] I do 2GB [18:41] 5 is ...big [18:42] I always put a 4GB recovery live .iso in /boot, you don't? [18:42] * jelly hides [18:42] *finds jelly, drags jelly out into the desert, ties them to a pole, then returns, leaving jelly in the desert alone* [18:42] (just kidding!) [18:43] you can't drag a jelly anyway [18:43] Jenshae: --^ fwiw, those comments were for you :) [not the stuff about jelly, before that] [18:44] well they weren't for them as much as about their unusual specs [18:45] (grml-rescueboot is neat tho, even if not completely serious) [18:46] when the drives are 10tb fiddling over a few gigs here or there feels a bit funny :) [18:46] nacc 10GBx4 /root and the 5.5GB /boot is because sometimes for some reason apt will use /boot to temporarily store files + symmetry with the other drives. [18:48] sarnold: ah, sorry, missed that context [18:49] nacc: I don't know how large Jenshae's drives *actually* are.. it's just amused me in the past that this problem feels easy enough to address by the application of more money :) [18:49] using raid5 for / seems silly as well, in that case [18:49] sarnold: absolutely [18:49] nothing wrong with raid10 or raid1 [18:50] Well, in the end I resorted to getting another drives, setting it up as the boot one, nothing interesting, no RAID config, etc. Then just attached the four drives as ZFS pool.