[00:00] <teward> nevermind
[07:48] <lordievader> Good morning
[08:42] <ThothCastel> fresh install offline of ubuntu server with static ip of 10.10.20.5/24 GW 10.10.20.1
[08:43] <ThothCastel> plugged onto a netgear switch port 4
[08:43] <ThothCastel> netgear is uplinked to a fw
[08:43] <ThothCastel> if I plug a laptop with static ip address onto port 4 of netgear switch, then I am able to ping its gw 10.10.20.1
[08:43] <ThothCastel> BUT my ubuntu says it can't reach its default gateway when plugged onto the same port 4 of netgear switch
[08:43] <ThothCastel> within ubuntu I can ping itself and on the switch port 4 I can see it is up so cable is good
[08:43] <ThothCastel> but why the hell can't i ping my gw from ubuntu?
[08:45] <lordievader> Can the laptop and server reach eachother?
[08:46] <lordievader> Useful for troubleshooting, run a `tcpdump 'icmp'` on both sides.
[10:06] <ThothCastel> lordievader: the laptop can ping its gateway 10.10.20.1 but ubuntu server 10.10.20.5
[10:06] <ThothCastel> which is awkward
[10:06] <ThothCastel> I have configured both ports 3 and 4 the same way on the netgear switch
[10:07] <ThothCastel> laptop when plugged onto either 3 or 4 of netgear, it reaches its gateway
[10:07] <ThothCastel> but not the ubuntu server
[10:07] <ThothCastel> checked ip settings in netplan
[10:07] <ThothCastel> re-generated
[10:07] <ThothCastel> re-applied
[10:07] <ThothCastel> still the same thing
[10:07] <ThothCastel> destination host unreachable
[10:08] <lordievader> So nothing can reach the server? Do you see ICMP requests on the tcpdump of the server, or completely nothing?
[10:08] <ThothCastel> no
[10:08] <ThothCastel> i just see that it is 'listening'
[10:09] <ThothCastel> laptop is a win10 machine
[10:09] <ThothCastel> just changed cable
[10:10] <ThothCastel> still the same
[10:49] <lordievader> If you see nothing on the server it is likely a problem outside of the server. You can try connecting the laptop and server directly, to fully rule out the server itself.
[12:15] <ThothCastel> lordievader: fairpoint
[12:15] <ThothCastel> have tried that
[12:15] <ThothCastel> the issue disappears
[12:15] <lordievader> Sounds like the problem lies between the laptop and the server (the switch)
[12:17] <ThothCastel> that is the tricky bit
[12:18] <ThothCastel> and if I plug any other device other than the ubuntu server onto the same ports, then the problem isn't there
[12:18] <ThothCastel> because I have checked all configs on the switch dozens of times - all looks good
[12:19] <ThothCastel> is there such a thing is imcompatibility of a netgear switch with ubuntu server? lol
[12:22] <lordievader> The switch is a normal layer two switch? Or does it do something special (managed/vlans, etc)
[12:22] <ThothCastel> managed/vlans
[12:22] <ThothCastel> the ports in question 3 and 4 are tagged with vlan 1020
[12:23] <ThothCastel> they also have pvid of 1020
[12:23] <ThothCastel> and if a laptop is plugged onto these ports 3 and 4, I can access gw 10.10.20.1
[12:23] <ThothCastel> BUT if i plug the ubuntu onto 3 or 4 then problem is there
[12:24] <ThothCastel> Destination unreachable
[12:24] <ThothCastel> it makes no sense whatsoever
[12:24] <ThothCastel> i don't even see it hiting the fw
[12:29] <sdeziel> ThothCastel: if your PVID is 1020, you normally would have VLAN 1020 as *untagged*
[12:30] <ThothCastel> ok let me try that
[12:30] <ThothCastel> sdeziel: hurray!
[12:30] <ThothCastel> that works
[12:30] <sdeziel> ThothCastel: cool :)
[12:30] <ThothCastel> damm... tried so many options
[12:30] <ThothCastel> except that one :)
[12:31] <ThothCastel> thanks sdeziel
[12:31] <ThothCastel> so if I have pvid for that port 3 and 4 as vlan 1
[12:31] <ThothCastel> then I will tag vlan 1020
[12:31] <ThothCastel> correct?
[12:31] <sdeziel> this is the thing with debugging all attempts fail but the last ;)
[12:31] <ThothCastel> lol
[12:33] <sdeziel> ThothCastel: when untagged packet enter a switch port, they get assigned the PVID VLAN. Since you want the return packets on that VLAN to be handed over without VLAN tag, you need to make that VLAN untagged
[12:34] <sdeziel> ThothCastel: failing to do the last part means the switch was handing over the return packets with a VLAN 1020 tag the PC wasn't ready to handle
[12:35] <ThothCastel> sdeziel: right!
[12:36] <ThothCastel> so if I was to set ports 3 and 4 with pvid as vlan 1 and TAG vlan 1020, that would give me similar positive result right?
[12:37] <sdeziel> ThothCastel: you'd need an untagged VLAN 1 on ports 3 and 4. With that, what's hooked to either of those port could communicate "normally" on VLAN 1 but would require VLAN configuration to handle VLAN 1020
[12:43] <ThothCastel> sdeziel: right makes sense
[12:43] <ThothCastel> thanks loads
[12:43] <ThothCastel> :)
[12:43] <sdeziel> my pleasure
[22:15] <kinghat> im trying to setup a swapfile on my machine but its btrfs at root, is that not possible? i keep getting:
[22:15] <kinghat> $ sudo swapon /swapfile
[22:15] <kinghat> swapon: /swapfile: swapon failed: Invalid argument
[22:22] <mybalzitch> what happens if you sudo mkswap /swapfile then try to swapon it
[22:23] <kinghat> $ sudo mkswap /swapfile
[22:23] <kinghat> mkswap: /swapfile: warning: wiping old swap signature.
[22:23] <kinghat> Setting up swapspace version 1, size = 4 GiB (4294963200 bytes)
[22:23] <kinghat> no label, UUID=180a941b-5d76-4a6f-85bf-39ae4e1245dd
[22:23] <kinghat> $ sudo swapon /swapfile
[22:23] <kinghat> swapon: /swapfile: swapon failed: Invalid argument
[22:24] <kinghat> i originally used fallocate and read that wasnt proper, so i wrote over that with dd.  then did mkdswap and swapon.
[22:24] <mybalzitch> hmm, weird. I've never used btrfs though
[22:25] <kinghat> i found this: https://askubuntu.com/a/1206161/868274 but im not going to bother if thats the case.
[23:51] <ivo_cavalcante> it is doable, swap on btrfs
[23:52] <ivo_cavalcante> but with some considerations, as you noted
[23:52] <ivo_cavalcante> let me link btrfs wiki, they say something there
[23:53] <ivo_cavalcante> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Manpage/btrfs(5)#SWAPFILE_SUPPORT
[23:54] <ivo_cavalcante> I'd rather use a different partition, though