[00:00] I have the 19.01 ppa imported. [00:18] runelind_q: https://docs.ubuntu.com/landscape/en/ReleaseNotes19.01#upgrade-notes [05:25] good morning [05:50] hey [07:22] Good morning [11:06] trying to install Ubuntu 18.04 server on md0 ... what am I doing wrong? http://tinypic.com/r/5b5w2c/9 [11:22] Hello, I'm trying to do an expert install (priority=low), using the ubuntu-18.04.02-server.iso, using UEFI. [11:22] at boot I have a black screen to select what install I want and I do know I need to hit 'e' to edit the boot command, but it's not clear where in that command I need to put the 'priority=low'... [11:36] good morning [11:37] zetheroo: hi, I'm not sure, can you switch to a console and grab the installer logs and open a bug about it? [11:38] for some reason it was trying to do stuff to sdb2, but you said md0 [11:39] ahasenack: trying now not as UEFI [11:40] I'm just wondering my this is not a lot more automated ... as in ... 1. select two disks for Raid 1 ... 2. Create md0 ... 3. Install Ubuntu server to md0 and all needed partitions are automatically created ... [11:41] well, it is [11:41] did you try to put /boot in md0? [11:42] there is bug #1785332, but that's not a crash, so yours might be still different [11:42] bug 1785332 in subiquity "18.04.1 can't put /boot on SW RAID or LVM" [High,Triaged] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1785332 [11:46] I am going to try to follow this doc https://help.ubuntu.com/lts/serverguide/advanced-installation.html.en [11:58] this ^ documentation seems outdated [11:59] from step 2 "Select the first hard drive, and agree to "Create a new empty partition table on this device?"." [11:59] that doesn't happen [12:00] I suspect that is for the other installer [12:00] seems to have been written with the older installer in mind [12:01] the old d-i one [12:01] yes [12:02] it's pretty normal to want a raid install ... pity it's such a hassle with Ubuntu :/ [12:03] zetheroo: you shouldn't be seeing a crash, which iso have you used? [12:03] the latest [12:03] http://releases.ubuntu.com/18.04/ubuntu-18.04.2-live-server-amd64.iso [12:04] http://releases.ubuntu.com/18.04.2/ubuntu-18.04.2-live-server-amd64.iso?_ga=2.113316356.269976443.1551182643-138997716.1541676447 is the latest [12:04] without ga :) [12:04] right, so two disks, uefi? [12:04] 2 disks - uefi - but now trying legacy [12:05] boot and swap are normally outside the raid ... no? [12:07] I'm just trying that with a vm now, uefi mode [12:10] ok [12:11] I can't make heads or tails from the Manual partitioner ... :/ [12:13] the classic one, or from this live-server iso we just linked to? [12:14] http://releases.ubuntu.com/18.04/ubuntu-18.04.2-live-server-amd64.iso [12:14] live-server [12:17] I also just got a crash, but different than yours [12:17] I think I used incorrect partition sizes, even though I typed in the exact number that was given as a max [12:18] bottom line, you need to create partitions on the disk, unformatted, with which you will create the md0 array later [12:18] yeah, but what about the boot partition and swap? [12:18] so I was trying first /boot, outside the array, then used the rest for an unformatted one [12:18] do they get created outside the md? [12:18] I wasn't creating swap [12:19] you could create it outside the array, or use two extra unformatted partitions for a raid0 md1 perhaps [12:19] and there create swap later (md1) [12:19] the installer will automatically create /boot/efi after you created /boot [12:20] ah [12:20] but, and I think this is an open bug, this won't help you booting your system if the disk with /boot fails, afaik you can't raid /boot with uefi [12:20] right [12:20] and you cannot select "Make bootable" on the md0 [12:21] zetheroo: http://i63.tinypic.com/qnjin4.png is my layout [12:23] 1. create unformatted partition on both disks spanning the entire disk space. 2. Create raid1 with both disks and unformated partitions. 3. ?? [12:23] Do I make a 512MB ext4 /boot partition on the md0? I don't think that will work with uefi ... or? [12:24] no, create /boot outside the raid [12:24] so create one partition for /boot on one disk [12:24] on the other, I would create a partition of the same size, but leave it unformatted, just to keep the disks equal [12:25] then create, again on both disks, an unformatted partition that will be md0 [12:25] and, if you want, another one for md1 or swap [12:25] then create the md0 raid, using the big unformatted partition from both disks [12:25] and in md0, create / [12:26] ok, pretty sure that's what I have been doing all along [12:26] will try again [12:27] be conservative in the sizes [12:28] if the installer says something like "max size is 18.9823G" [12:28] don't use that exact value, I think there are rounding errors [12:28] use 17G, for this example [12:28] Make bootable device creates /boot/efi [12:29] and then installer doesn't like this ... it wants /boot [12:29] but won't uefi want /boot/efi? [12:29] I wouldn't worry about that, I think the installer handles those kinds of details [12:29] and I don't think a bootable partition matters with uefi [12:29] but I could be wrong [12:30] I just don't remember worrying about marking a partition as bootable [12:30] then why is there an option to make a disk bootable? [12:30] don't know [12:30] it creates /boot/efi as fat32 [12:30] maybe a leftover from mbr [12:30] yeah, the efi part is [v]fat[32] [12:31] so /boot as ext4 ... how is that supposed to work? [12:31] did this work for you? [12:31] I usually use ext2 for /boot, but ext4 works too. I don't think there is even an ext2 option in there [12:34] nah, same error every time [12:35] failed to remove holders from .. [12:35] then please file a bug here https://bugs.launchpad.net/subiquity/+filebug [12:36] attaching the files from /var/log/installer/ [12:36] going to try out with Legacy [12:39] zetheroo: this layout worked for me now, I was a bit more conservative with the sizes: http://i67.tinypic.com/1zcj1ip.png [12:41] legacy also failed [12:42] ahasenack: so you think it's an issue with overbooking the disk space? [12:42] tjay [12:42] that would be really wierd [12:43] the fact that legacy also failed might indicate something else is going on [12:43] we can only help more if you file a bug with the logs, and exactly how you are partitioning the disk [12:43] disks* [12:46] http://tinypic.com/r/iw29s7/9 [12:47] that does look like the size you picked was too much [12:47] that ending number, after the 2048 one [12:47] I didn't pick a size ... I let the partitioner take as much as was available [12:48] you didn't type in a value? [12:49] in the Size field? [12:49] yes, when creating the partition [12:49] where it says what's the max available size you can use [12:49] no ... I leave it black and it automatically takes the max there is unused [12:49] you have to input a value, or does it accept an empty value? [12:49] blank* [12:49] I see [12:50] can you try inputting a value, just 1Gb below the max advertised size, to test? [12:50] ok [12:50] at which point though ... before making the md0 or after when making the ext4 ? [12:50] ext4 at / that is [12:52] zetheroo: I get the same when I don't pick sizes [12:52] zetheroo: in all points, although I think the first one (creating the partition that will hold the md0) is more important [12:57] here is the partitioning layout and the error https://ibb.co/5WP9fkx [12:57] https://ibb.co/hFdGgvP [12:57] and this was with being conservative with the partitioning of the unformatted partitions for the raid [12:57] zetheroo: I filed https://bugs.launchpad.net/subiquity/+bug/1817904 [12:57] Launchpad bug 1817904 in subiquity "crash when not selecting partition sizes" [Undecided,New] [12:58] Ok [12:59] So for now I guess installing Ubuntu server on md raid is a no-go ... [13:00] do you have a launchpad account, and could you attach your screenshots to that bug? [13:01] doing it now [13:01] thx [13:01] done [13:08] https://pastebin.com/y2saS4uw <------ hi guys i have a weird problem, i install ubuntu server with USB it went through and finished the install but when i boot with HDD drive the ubuntu server wont load but if i plug the USB it will load and i get this on the storage is my USB used as the system for ubuntu or the HDD Drive - any help guys Thanks [13:10] ruben23: when you say it won't boot with the hdd drive, what exactly happens? If you plug the usb back in, and it boots from there, don't you just get the installer again? [13:15] ahasenack: after the install so i removed the USB drive, then boot with C: drive, nothing happens just booting process but when i plug sa usb installer it boots on the newly installed ubuntu server i can login with credentials already [13:16] what do you mean "nothing happens just booting process" [13:16] its pretty weird i tested it reboot with USb works perfectly then without wont load at all, any help please, based on the df -h storage display does the usb drive plays role on the bootable part or does the system detects it.? ahasenack: [13:16] is your bios configured to even try to boot from the disk? [13:16] yes its already booting from Drive C: as first boot [13:18] well, unless you have a 1.8Tb usb disk, that df output shows your hard drive [13:18] what is the 1.8Tb disk? [13:18] yes thats my drive [13:18] my usb is 16GB only [13:18] https://pastebin.com/y2saS4uw [13:19] one of the options when booting the installer is to boot from the "first hard disk", you might be using that to boot into your installed system [13:19] or, it might be detecting that's the case, and auto-selecting that option for you [13:19] that being said, it should definitely boot from your hard disk on its own [13:20] if it's not doing that, sounds like the grub installation step failed [13:20] ahasenack: is there a non-live installer for Ubuntu server 18.04? [13:20] zetheroo: yes [13:20] didn't you try it already? When you said you tried the legacy installer? [13:21] ahasenack: but during the install of grub no error appears at all it completes the install process, so i cant boot my server without USB being plug now :'( [13:21] https://www.ubuntu.com/#download "use the traditional installer" [13:21] which eventually links to http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/18.04.2/release/ubuntu-18.04.2-server-amd64.iso [13:21] zetheroo: ^ [13:22] ok [13:22] ruben23: i would do whatever it takes to boot, then run grub-install giving it the correct device [13:22] ruben23: I refrain from giving you an exact command line because dealing with disks, grub, and partitioning, can lead to loss of data if done incorrectly [13:23] but that's the gist of it [13:23] ahasenack: the server is brandnew no data at all yet please help me [13:24] ahasenack: every way I try I get the live download [13:25] or should I be using the Alternative Ubuntu Server installer ? [13:26] zetheroo: I gave you an exact link [13:26] ruben23: try "grub-install /dev/sda" after you booted into your installation via the usb disk then [13:27] Installation finished. No error reported. [13:27] should i reboot now with no usb.? [13:28] ahasenack: oh doh .. sorry [13:29] ruben23: yeah [13:30] should i pull usb now before reboot.? [13:30] no [13:30] pull it at the bios screen [13:30] oh ok [13:30] doing now [13:33] woooooh it works...simply wow [13:34] maybe grub was installed in /dev/sda1 before, instead of /dev/sda [13:34] ahasenack: Thank you so much for this help, anything i should need to do and adjust to the server.? [13:34] regarding boot, if it worked, I guess not [13:37] ahasenack: Thanks you so much i thought i was doomed :) really thank you [13:37] good luck :) [13:41] ahasenack: in https://code.launchpad.net/~ahasenack/ubuntu/+source/squid/+git/squid/+merge/363726, does debhelper definitely install debian/squid.tmpfile correctly? [13:42] rbasak: yes, it ends up in /usr/lib/tmpfile.d [13:42] I didn't know about that feature [13:43] and there are many files in there already [13:43] look in dh_systemd_enable(1) for example [13:43] debian/package.tmpfile [13:43] If this exists, it is installed into usr/lib/tmpfiles.d/package.conf in the package build directory. (The tmpfiles.d mechanism is currently only used by systemd.) [13:44] also handled by dh_installinit [13:44] +1, thanks [13:45] thanks [16:31] rbasak: cpaelzer: any suggestion on how to make this line in .install multi-arch friendly? [16:31] usr/lib/*/libpytalloc-util.cpython-37m-x86-64-linux-gnu.so.* [16:31] I tried dh-exec, and ${DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH} [16:32] but that variable expands to (on amd64) x86-64, and not x86_64 [16:32] (or the other way around, anyway, the difference is "-" vs "_") [16:34] I could always use * instead of the arch bit, but I fear that might match too many things. Not at the moment, though, but in the future [16:34] or maybe use some ${} expansion tricks [16:58] ahasenack: I don't know, but I'm curious to know the answer. I've hit that before :-/ [16:59] rbasak: I checked ${} expansion rules in dash, nothing like sed to replace _ with - [16:59] rbasak: I'm going with a simple globbing for now :( [16:59] https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Implementation also didn't have hints [17:01] rbasak: I'll email ubuntu-devel@ === Serge is now known as hallyn [17:53] ahasenack: does http://paste.ubuntu.com/p/64Rj2Td3nN/ seem reasonable to you as a pin file for the certbot SRU? [17:53] It seems to work. [17:54] rbasak: hm, my pinning know-how is not in my warm cache [17:57] rbasak: checking https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed [17:57] rbasak: what's the regular xenial-proposed prio number? [17:57] don't you need something to "downgrade" the other proposed packages? [18:01] i thought downgrades weren't automatic :P [18:01] I meant a downgrade in the pin-priority, aka, smaller number [18:02] ah === tif__ is now known as realtime [20:18] rbasak: why is certbot in Ubuntu "useless" because of TLS-SNI-01? Reading your mailing list announcement. Does it not already support http-01 and/or dns-01 ? [20:30] blackflow: I don't know for sure but I believe that TLS-SNI-01 was the default validation method back then [20:43] blackflow: in _16.04_, no other mechanisms were supported at release time. [20:44] So it'll become useless when TLS-SNI-01 is completely retired. [20:54] rbasak: I see. I thought http-01 was the default and present in all acme clients, certbot included. I don't use it, that's why I don't know, I prefer the simplicity of dehydrated. but quite surprising if certbot didn't support http-01.