[07:01] ravage: not related. the server boots fine, its only the bullseye domu that doesnt work. [07:25] oke. i just changed the line to be 512mb memory instead of 256, and that works. [07:25] which is a little weird, as it shouldnt take that much memory. === cpaelzer_ is now known as cpaelzer [08:16] It would be awesome if the kernel could directly use (initrd.squashfs + tmpfs overlay) instead of the typical initramfs. It would save both decompression time and the huge initial RAM usage, which drops after the initramfs is freed. [08:18] You might be able to reduce the RAM usage by changing some option in your initramfs-tools config file. [08:18] Can't remember at the moment, can find it soon. [08:21] unmkinitramfs /boot/initrd.img . && du -sh . => 341M, if you add the 100+ MB that the kernel and initrd already use, it needs more than 500 MB nowadays. My idea above would allow it to boot with just the initial 100+ MB RAM. [08:21] arraybolt3: grep dep /etc/initramfs-tools/initramfs.conf [08:22] alkisg: Yes, that's it. Thanks! [08:23] elflng: In /etc/initramfs-tools/initramfs.conf, change the 'MODULES=most' line to 'MODULES=dep' and then rebuild your initramfs files, that may significantly reduce their size and RAM requirements. This trick has gotten around a couple of out-of-memory errors in the past. You might also be able to change the compression mode to further reduce size, but I don't know if that will actually [08:23] affect the in-memory size or not. [08:24] arraybolt3: thank you! is this also why the error is 'unable to find partition containing kernel' ? [08:26] trying it now with dep instead of most, we'll see if it loads and what the mem req is [08:28] nope, still fails with dep [08:29] (does xen-create-image use the initramfs-tools conf?) [08:31] I personally have managed to boot a modern Linux distro with only 256 MB RAM, but that was Arch Linux 32 with an i486 kernel, which was specifically meant for low-RAM systems. I would imagine that Debian would give someone quite a bit more grief trying to make it fit in that small of a space. [08:33] debian buster works fine in 256 [08:33] bullseye doesnt [08:33] (for xen images, that is) [11:10] xen-create-image isnt using the /etc/initramfs-tools config. [11:10] from the looks of it. [11:23] even with changing the creation script to make the initramfs with MODULES=dep, it still blows up at 256M [12:35] cpaelzer: bin:probert depends on bin:probert-network (https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#probert) [12:36] cpaelzer: somehow probert-network flipped between main and universe since jammy [12:36] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/jammy/amd64/probert-network [12:36] and is now in universe again [12:36] https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/lunar/amd64/probert-network [12:37] I don't even understand how it was released in universe in kinetic, since the dependency was there and should have kept it in main [13:42] ahasenack: so it is "just" a component mismatch but there is a MIR that approved it int he past? [13:43] cpaelzer: there must have been, the source moved to main in Eoan [13:44] I don't know how to track the binary publishing history across releases [13:44] focal: universe: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/focal/amd64/probert-network [13:45] but briefly in main [13:45] jammy: universe, main, universe, main, then universe [13:45] it dances a lot [13:45] (jammy: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/jammy/amd64/probert-network) [13:50] ahasenack: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/probert/+bug/1830347 [13:50] -ubottu:#ubuntu-server- Launchpad bug 1830347 in probert (Ubuntu) "[MIR] probert as dependency of curtin and subiquity" [Undecided, Fix Released] [13:51] ok, eoan [13:51] so why is probert-network dancing around [13:51] ahasenack: but I do not see it in https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches-proposed.html [13:51] ahasenack: so is it actually a problem? [13:51] me neither [13:51] excuses says it is [13:51] https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#probert [13:51] generated earlier today [13:51] was the same yesterday [13:52] bin:probert-network is in lunar-proposed/universe [13:52] probert-network | 0.0.20build5 | lunar/universe | amd64, arm64, armhf, ppc64el, riscv64, s390x [13:52] probert-network | 0.0.20build6 | lunar-proposed/universe | amd64, arm64, armhf, ppc64el, riscv64, s390x [13:52] specifically build6 [13:53] probert source and binary are in main, and like you say the dependency is rather straight forward [13:54] mystery [14:01] ahasenack: I resovled it and updated the bug for later reference [14:01] thx === smoser1 is now known as smoser [17:53] lena_: o/ FYI I asked upstream in https://github.com/net-snmp/net-snmp/issues/476 [17:53] -ubottu:#ubuntu-server- Issue 476 in net-snmp/net-snmp "SNMP request fails to resolve hostname if DNS entry is longer than 64 characters" [Closed] [17:55] Thanks, I'll keep an eye on it [18:55] https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/proposed-migration/update_excuses.html#postgis says there is a binary package in proposed which is a leftover from the previous version (which never migrated to the release pocket). I am wondering if it will be cleaned up eventually by some archive automation or if I will need to request its (manual) removal [19:20] kanashiro[m]: is https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/bsfilter/+bug/1972040 a dupe of https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ruby-sdbm/+bug/1979128 perhaps? [19:20] -ubottu:#ubuntu-server- Launchpad bug 1972040 in bsfilter (Ubuntu) "bsfilter on jammy needs ruby-sdbm" [Undecided, Confirmed] [19:20] -ubottu:#ubuntu-server- Launchpad bug 1979128 in bsfilter (Ubuntu Jammy) "[SRU] ruby-sdbm should be backported to jammy" [Undecided, In Progress] [19:22] ahasenack: it seems so [19:23] I'll mark it as such [19:26] kanashiro[m]: any particular reason the bsfilter depends on ruby-sdbm is versioned in lunar (>= 1.0.0-1) but not versioned in the jammy sru? [19:27] I know the package didn't exist in jammy before, and you backported the correct version, so it will work [19:27] but I'm comparing the change from the SRU to the change in devel [19:28] oh, I guess you mentioned this in comment #12 [19:29] ok, all good, it was discussed