Re: rfc: expectations for partitioning, Fedora.next

2014-02-22 Thread Frank Murphy
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

2014-02-22 Thread Michal Jaegermann
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

2014-02-22 Thread Chris Murphy

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

2014-02-22 Thread Chris Murphy

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

2014-02-22 Thread Felix Miata

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

2014-02-22 Thread Michal Jaegermann
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

2014-02-22 Thread Chris Murphy

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

2014-02-22 Thread Chris Murphy

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

2014-02-22 Thread Felix Miata

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

2014-02-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius

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

2014-02-22 Thread Ralf Corsepius

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