Re: rfc: expectations for partitioning, Fedora.next
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 16:55:56 -0700 Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: and the user gets to choose a couple of variations: encryption, and a way to reuse an existing /home. Personally, I wouldn't be happy with too restrictive. home lan setup I setup fresh install Desktops with a min of four hds' One partition per hd /boot + 2mb boot bios (or whatever it's called) ssd / /home + hd for each extra user if required swap installed non LVM, ext4 luks I can use 10-20 per server. (raid1) # I've been hearing for years storage is cheap. ___ Regards Frank frankly3d.com -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
time jumping back
Before I will start to write bugzilla entries and the like I wonder if anybody have seen something like this. Look at timestamps on a fragment of a journalctl output: Feb 21 09:10:16 some.host dbus-daemon[557]: dbus[557]: [system] Activation via systemd failed for unit 'dbus-org.freedesktop.ModemManager1.serv ice': Unit dbus-org.freedesktop.ModemManager1.service failed to load: No such fi le or directory. Feb 21 09:10:16 some.host dbus[557]: [system] Activation via systemd failed for unit 'dbus-org.freedesktop.ModemManager1.service': Unit dbus-org.freedesktop.ModemManager1.service failed to load: No such file or directory. Feb 20 23:22:01 some.host systemd[1]: Time has been changed -- Subject: Time change -- Defined-By: systemd -- Support: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel -- -- The system clock has been changed to REALTIME microseconds after January 1st, 1970. That followed by a number of systemd[yyy]: Time has been changed entries. A closer examination found that hardware clock was modified too. This is a remote machine running Fedora 20 with 3.13.3-201.fc20 kernel and using ntpd for a time synchronization. I failed to notice immediately what is going on and only wondered why my logs are terminated at some weird time yesterday. Only after a while I caught what is really going on. Stopping and starting ntpd jumped time to a correct value. As, so far, this was something I _never_ encountered in this for before I would be inclined to dismiss that as a hardware/software glitch if not that detail that from another remote I got email with a definitely weird and unexpected timestamp. Checking logs there revealed the following: Feb 22 08:01:28 other.host run-parts[18105]: (/etc/cron.hourly) finished mcelog.cron Jan 02 23:16:08 other.host systemd[1]: Time has been changed -- Subject: Time change -- Defined-By: systemd -- Support: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel -- -- The system clock has been changed to REALTIME microseconds after January 1st, 1970. Jan 02 23:16:08 other.host systemd[823]: Time has been changed -- Subject: Time change -- Defined-By: systemd -- Support: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel -- -- The system clock has been changed to REALTIME microseconds after January 1st, 1970. and so on. This time it lost not some hours but nearly two months. This other box is running on a quite different, much newer, hardware and although this is also Fedora 20 with the same kernel it is using chrony for a time synchronization. Stopping it and starting corrected that time but once again I had to use hwclock to bring BIOS from the past. The same systemd-208-9.fc20 was installed on both machines on January 20th. There was a big pile of updates on February 18th, and that included kernel-3.13.3-201.fc20, but it was rather quiet after that. I have other boxes with a similar software configuration but, so far and knock-on-wood, I have no other observations like those above. That is why I wonder are there any other instances of such time backjumps? If reporting something in bugzilla then against what? I have not a clue. Michal -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: rfc: expectations for partitioning, Fedora.next
On Feb 22, 2014, at 1:57 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 16:55:56 -0700 Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: and the user gets to choose a couple of variations: encryption, and a way to reuse an existing /home. Personally, I wouldn't be happy with too restrictive. home lan setup I setup fresh install Desktops with a min of four hds' One partition per hd /boot + 2mb boot bios (or whatever it's called) ssd / /home + hd for each extra user if required swap installed non LVM, ext4 luks I can use 10-20 per server. (raid1) # I've been hearing for years storage is cheap. The context of what you quoted from me above is the Automatic/guided path. I can't tell you how Automatic partitioning works with four disks, but it definitely doesn't do raid1. However, it's an interesting data point that your installations involved a minimum of four hard drives. That's really unheard of on Windows or OS X - which I include only to underscore how rare a configuration it is, not whether it's right or wrong. I really wish we had more data on how people are configuring their servers and workstations, or want to. The bootable raid1 case is actually fragile due to the use of mdadm version 0.9 metadata; and also there's a regression on UEFI computers that makes it decently likely the system can't be (re)booted degraded. So if there's merit in bootable (rootfs on) degraded raid1 or 10 or 5, some work needs to be done. Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: time jumping back
On Feb 22, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Michal Jaegermann mic...@harddata.com wrote: This other box is running on a quite different, much newer, hardware and although this is also Fedora 20 with the same kernel it is using chrony for a time synchronization. Stopping it and starting corrected that time but once again I had to use hwclock to bring BIOS from the past. Time is confusing. There have been changes in the past year to the kernel for keeping system time correct including a recent patch set in December that affects EFI machines. Anyway, it's likely you'll find conflicting information on how things are supposed to work depending on how current the source is. Use 'timedatectl status' to show local, system, RTC times and other info. There is also a GRUB2 date command that shows rtc time, and can also be used to set it. I'd make sure those two agree with each other. Are either of the problemed computers put to sleep or powered down? It might be that their RTC isn't keeping proper time when in suspend or powered off. So I'd try to find out what else is happening that correlates to the time becoming wrong in the first place. Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: rfc: expectations for partitioning, Fedora.next
On 2014-02-22 18:49 (GMT-0700) Chris Murphy composed: This crappy partioning GUI in the installer is does not give me the amount of control on partitioning desired by me. I don't understand this. It's the most capable GUI partitioner + OS installer I've ever encountered, and I've used quite a few installers, yet maybe I'm missing something obvious? openSUSE? Nothing else comes close. To start with, it doesn't need even 500M RAM to run. I've used it not so long ago on 384M, and seen anecdotes of needing as little as 128M or 160M with swap available not so long ago. It's built on the same YaST2 that's used for configuration in live installations. Practically nothing is impossible in its installer GUI that's possible in its live system configuration GUI. WRT GUI software selection during installation, everything else is several orders of magnitude behind openSUSE. I can't give full details about using its partitioner during installation, because I use a proprietary partitioner to prepare all to be used in advance of installation 99.6% of the time. It's easy to use to configure RAID, and to select mount points and mount options, with a tree configuration that doesn't confound by inexplicably repeating the same partitions under various anti-sorted individual and grouped names the way Anaconda does. -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: time jumping back
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 07:26:25PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: Are either of the problemed computers put to sleep or powered down? It might be that their RTC isn't keeping proper time when in suspend or powered off. Well, no. As I said they are remotes and they are practically always on. They were not powered down when these jumps happened. Logs would look quite different if this would be the case. One of these runs on a hardware which is about six-seven years old, the newer one went into a service about two years ago. So I'd try to find out what else is happening that correlates to the time becoming wrong in the first place. I did spent quite a bit of time this morning trying to find out some possible candidates for triggers but came back empty. As I said - I am not aware of anything of that sort happening ever before. It is hard to say anything about such, hopefully, rare event. That is why I asked if anybody else got hit by something like that. As for this moment both boxes maintain a very precise time. Michal -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: time jumping back
On Feb 22, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Michal Jaegermann mic...@harddata.com wrote: On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 07:26:25PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: Are either of the problemed computers put to sleep or powered down? It might be that their RTC isn't keeping proper time when in suspend or powered off. Well, no. As I said they are remotes and they are practically always on. They were not powered down when these jumps happened. Logs would look quite different if this would be the case. One of these runs on a hardware which is about six-seven years old, the newer one went into a service about two years ago. So I'd try to find out what else is happening that correlates to the time becoming wrong in the first place. I did spent quite a bit of time this morning trying to find out some possible candidates for triggers but came back empty. As I said - I am not aware of anything of that sort happening ever before. It is hard to say anything about such, hopefully, rare event. That is why I asked if anybody else got hit by something like that. As for this moment both boxes maintain a very precise time. It's not much to go on. This has happened on two computers, one with ntpd and one with chrony. Did they both get the wrong time at about the same time (as each other)? Is it still happening occasionally or is this so for a one off event for each? Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: rfc: expectations for partitioning, Fedora.next
On Feb 22, 2014, at 7:33 PM, Felix Miata mrma...@earthlink.net wrote: On 2014-02-22 18:49 (GMT-0700) Chris Murphy composed: This crappy partioning GUI in the installer is does not give me the amount of control on partitioning desired by me. I don't understand this. It's the most capable GUI partitioner + OS installer I've ever encountered, and I've used quite a few installers, yet maybe I'm missing something obvious? openSUSE? Nothing else comes close. Good example. There's a lot of nitty gritty reveals in openSUSE expert partitioner: I can set the right ext4/XFS mkfs options for proper hardware RAID alignment, and disable the ext4 journal, and a ton of other stuff. But partitioning, RAID, and LVM wise, I'm not seeing what I can do with openSUSE expert partitioning that I can't do with anaconda. However, on anaconda, I can create RAID 4 arrays, which seems unnecessary. Anyway, there's sufficient duplicative effort between then openSUSE and Fedora installers when it comes to ninja partitioning I'm not really understanding why they don't share an upstream project. And why they prevent their users from leveraging these capabilities to create storage outside of an OS install context, and for making modifications to existing storage. They aren't as pretty as gparted, but do a lot more. It's a lot of wheels being reinvented. Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: rfc: expectations for partitioning, Fedora.next
On 2014-02-22 20:57 (GMT-0700) Chris Murphy composed: there's sufficient duplicative effort between then openSUSE and Fedora installers when it comes to ninja partitioning I'm not really understanding why they don't share an upstream project. YaST2 is traditionally one of the top 2 things that keeps openSUSE users openSUSE users, a long way off from branching out to become a project independent its SUSE heritage. YaST is YaST, not an installer. What it does as an installer is a (major) byproduct of what it is, a comprehensive user friendly configuration UI (Yet Another Setup Tool, v2, on its way to becoming v3...). And why they prevent their users from leveraging these capabilities to create storage outside of an OS install context, and for making modifications to existing storage. They aren't as pretty as gparted, but do a lot more. It's a lot of wheels being reinvented. I'm pretty sure the YaST partitioner is *parted working underneath its GTK/QT personalities. Last year YaST2 began the long process of refactoring from its original language to Ruby, in part in order to to attract more outsiders to participate in its maintenance and evolution, but also to more easily import and export the many components that make it what it is. -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: rfc: expectations for partitioning, Fedora.next
On 02/23/2014 03:33 AM, Felix Miata wrote: On 2014-02-22 18:49 (GMT-0700) Chris Murphy composed: This crappy partioning GUI in the installer is does not give me the amount of control on partitioning desired by me. I don't understand this. It's the most capable GUI partitioner + OS installer I've ever encountered, and I've used quite a few installers, yet maybe I'm missing something obvious? openSUSE? That's one point. Most people I have been talking to, are German and thus quite likely have experience with the openSUSE. I for one, also consider it to be the most evolved partitioner amongst those installers/partitioners I've encountered throughout the years. Another point people are referring to, is the Usability of Fedora's partitioner's GUI. Esp. users with some Linux experience (no absolute new comers nor experts/nerds), complain about too much hidden voodoo and shy away from installing Fedora, because they are afraid of the partitioner killing their existing partioning and them loosing the other OSes they already have installed (Often Win + Ubuntu). Ralf -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking
On 02/22/2014 07:34 PM, drago01 wrote: And running tests at build time is a kludge anyway building has nothing to do with testing. Well, a lot of people will disagree with this claim. Testing as part of building (running a package's testsuite) can cover a lot of cases, but is a subset of general testing. Ralf -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test