| henry | hi, how do i get help on module missing in slapd package? | 03:10 |
|---|---|---|
| === cpaelzer_ is now known as cpaelzer | ||
| cpaelzer | good morning | 05:53 |
| utkarsh2102 | cpaelzer: o/ | 05:54 |
| cpaelzer | hi utkarsh2102 | 05:54 |
| OutBackDingo | seem to be seeing disk enumerations issues on ubuntu with multi disk systems, like 2 256gb ssd boot drives and 6 3.5Tb storage drives, ubuntu sees the boot drives last and installs to the 3.5TB, specifically using MAAS | 08:43 |
| OutBackDingo | we noticed it also trying an install from usb stick where sda was 3.5T, and not 128Gb | 08:43 |
| mirespace | good morning | 09:22 |
| icey | jamespage: any idea why this doesn't have logs: https://launchpad.net/~chris.macnaughton/+archive/ubuntu/focal-ussuri/+build/23490887 ? | 13:10 |
| JanC | OutBackDingo: I'm not sure why you expect drives to be enumerated in a particular order? | 13:25 |
| OutBackDingo | every other linux os sees the 2 ssd drives as sda / sdb except ubuntu | 13:26 |
| OutBackDingo | JanC: so curiously ubuntu sees them as sdi / sdj | 13:26 |
| OutBackDingo | and i would "expect" them to be enumerated in slot order at a minimal | 13:27 |
| JanC | AFAIK this enumeration has no guaranteed order, and might even differ between installer runs... | 13:27 |
| OutBackDingo | JanC: would make sense but mostly occurs only with ubuntu | 13:28 |
| JanC | there are many types of "slots" | 13:28 |
| JanC | I suppose /dev/disk/by-path/* is the closest you can get to a "slot order" ? | 13:35 |
| ogra | any guaranteed drive enumerration in linux has been dropped around linux 3.x ... it is sheer luck if you see them enumerated the same all the time | 13:39 |
| ogra | (or was it 2.x ??? definitely some time after udev got common standard) | 13:40 |
| JanC | well, some distros keep a cache to keep them the same over reboots after install | 13:40 |
| JanC | but on install, there would be no such cache | 13:40 |
| ahasenack | sergiodj: around? | 14:16 |
| ahasenack | sergiodj: you are not including the patches from https://code.launchpad.net/~sergiodj/ubuntu/+source/bind9/+git/bind9/+merge/417404 in the bind 9.18.1 merge because of the FFe? | 14:17 |
| ahasenack | because it might not be granted? | 14:17 |
| jamespage | icey: some other infrastructure issue in the build farm - my ceph upload from yesterday died in a mysterious way as well | 14:17 |
| sergiodj | ahasenack: yeah, I thought it was better to have two separate processes. but I can refactor things here and include the patches in the merge if you think it's best, no problem | 14:37 |
| ahasenack | sergiodj: if that ffe goes through, it will need the patches, so I think better add them now | 14:38 |
| ahasenack | I'm reviewing the 9.18.0 one, to unblock that in case the FFe doesn't go through | 14:38 |
| sergiodj | ahasenack: makes sense, I will add the patches to the merge | 14:38 |
| sergiodj | thanks for reviewing | 14:38 |
| sergiodj | ahasenack: thanks for the review | 19:09 |
| Comnenus | After I remove a static IP from netplan and change it to DHCP, # netplan try is getting the DHCP address but not releasing the static. How can I get rid of that? | 19:28 |
| genii | Did you issue: sudo netplan apply | 19:34 |
| ogra | if "apply" behaves different from "try" thats clearly a bug though (not saying that apply wont work indeed, but behaviour is supposed to be identical for both) | 19:37 |
| Comnenus | I did not try apply yet. | 19:43 |
| Comnenus | (haha) | 19:44 |
| sarnold | lol | 19:44 |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!