Re: cn.archive.ubuntu.com severely outdated
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: On Oct 9, 2007, at 5:49 PM, Aaron Whitehouse wrote: ... https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archivemirrors You should find your mirror cn.archive.ubuntu.com listed under Shanghai Linux User Group. Interestingly, that page says that it is a week behind, but if you click on the link and look for more detail, it says unknown freshness. I don't know the reason for the discrepancy. ... Reported. http://launchpad.net/bugs/151114 Perhaps the country level CNAMEs should resolve to archive.ubuntu.com when the mirrors are more than one day behind. Wenzhuo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: cn.archive.ubuntu.com severely outdated
On 10/10/07, Wenzhuo Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps the country level CNAMEs should resolve to archive.ubuntu.com when the mirrors are more than one day behind. This is rarely best. In the common case, any specific piece of software being installed has not changed in the past day (or even past week), and so collecting from a nearby location (in terms of network topology) is preferable. If a set of packages must be up to date, that repository should not be distributed in such a way as to allow delays (e.g. security.ubuntu.com). If an individual must have the latest set of packages, adding a more frequently updated mirror as a secondary source is a possible local solution, such that most packages are taken from the local archive, and out-of-date packages are taken from a more updated (but less close) archive. -- Emmet HIKORY -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
How about running fsck only when the file system was not properly unmounted the last time it was online? (crash, power fail) Assuming the file system is robust and bug-free, this should be adequate. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 12:02 +0200, mike corn wrote: How about running fsck only when the file system was not properly unmounted the last time it was online? (crash, power fail) Assuming the file system is robust and bug-free, this should be adequate. For this to be true, you need another assumption: All hardware is absolutely reliable which just is not the case. If a bit flip occurs due to bad RAM, a bad IDE cable, chipset problems or whatever, wrong values might be written to disk even with perfectly bug-free software. Such errors often don't have lethal impact from the beginning so that the user might not notice until its already too late. Having a scan from time to time might show up slight file system inconsistencies and raise attention to the user. Hinting a user to make backups after fsck had discovered errors on a regular scan (as opposed to a scan after a crash or power failure) would also be nice. However, I strongly agree that the user should be given the option to abort the scan. This also implies that the user is being informed on the splash screen first and that he knows what is actually about to happen. Just having the progress bar not moving for some time and going to console after the timeout occurs might look quite disturbing for inexperienced users. Regards, Christof Krüger -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
On 10/10/2007, Christof Krüger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, I strongly agree that the user should be given the option to abort the scan. Me too. This whole fsck business is a really ugly hole in the Ubuntu experience; first the fact that it can't be aborted, and secondly the fact that it isn't integrated with a splash screen. I understand that there are technical issues behind this which I don't have the knowledge to address properly, but the target must absolutely be to solve this problem, rather than make excuses from it. Has someone created a specification about the issue? -- Matthew East http://www.mdke.org gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
On 10/10/2007 Christof Krüger wrote: However, I strongly agree that the user should be given the option to abort the scan. This also implies that the user is being informed on the splash screen first and that he knows what is actually about to happen. Problem is that users will just skip the test, and get tired of having to skip the test each time. Perhaps an alternative would be to check only a part of the filesystem (e.g. randomly choosen) each time, but I don't know enough about filesystem (even though I should :) ) to say it's impossible or feasible. Vincenzo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
cn.archive.ubuntu.com severely outdated
Hi, I am the mirror administrator of cn.archive.ubuntu.com from Shanghai Linux User Group. Below is the email conversation between us and it can be a bit follow-up on wenzhuo's post. Regarding the upstream mirror source, we found planetmirror which is located in Australia is a quite a good source to rsync from and we've switched the debian mirror source (on the same server) to it. Our server located in Shanghai (data center of China Telecom) can go up to 5MByte/s during non-rush hours. Jim === The cron daemon on the mirror server had a problem some time few days back and we were not aware of that until around Oct 6. The crond issue caused mirror sync suspended during that period. We've had crond back online immediately. The issue about freshness status on the Launchpad.net has been there for a while since when we registered on Launchpad. So seems just a coincidence. I've sent an email to ubuntu mirror admin asking about it. Thanks a lot for your help and info. Jim Cheng - Hide quoted text - On 10/10/07, Wenzhuo Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cheng wrote: Hi Wenzhuo, Thanks for your email. The ubuntu archive on our server should always contain the latest copy, it syncs from ubuntu master mirror 6 times per day(every 4 hours). It seems for some reason the launchpad cannot detect the freshness of files on our site. I'll send an email to Ubuntu mirror admin for further check. Actually, it was indeed about a week behind. I noticed this issue because my gutsy installation had not seen any updates for about a week. After changing all occourances of cn.archive.ubuntu.com in sources.list to archive.ubuntu.com, the update manager prompted that there were 406 updates. Wenzhuo Thanks and I will keep you updated. Jim On 10/10/07, Wenzhuo Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'd like to remind you that your ubuntu mirror is more than one week behind the master site. See https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+archivemirrors Wenzhuo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
A partial check doesn't make sense with the current fsck tools AFAIK. We should do a full filesystem check if anything, and if a user decides to abort it, it's his choice. There should be a graphical or otherwise easily accessible way of re-touching the /forcefsck flag so that users can choose which bootup to do a check on. Another idea is on LVM-capable systems to take a snapshot of important filesystems while they are unmounted or read-only then fsck the snapshot device as a background task. If any serious errors are detected in the snapshot, then schedule an uncancelable boot scan. I agree with everyone who says that the current fsck experience is a blemish to Ubuntu's general user-friendliness, and also that we should not be entirely removing the regular fsck as it catches hardware irregularities and potential software bugs with ext3. John On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 01:25:54PM +0200, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote: Problem is that users will just skip the test, and get tired of having to skip the test each time. Perhaps an alternative would be to check only a part of the filesystem (e.g. randomly choosen) each time, but I don't know enough about filesystem (even though I should :) ) to say it's impossible or feasible. Vincenzo pgp05N5f7HUAd.pgp Description: PGP signature -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
John Dong wrote: I agree with everyone who says that the current fsck experience is a blemish to Ubuntu's general user-friendliness, and also that we should not be entirely removing the regular fsck as it catches hardware irregularities and potential software bugs with ext3. When was the last time you had a fsck find and fix errors? I have two machines that have been running reiserfs for 2 years now and have never had to fsck, and on the rare occasion that I am bored and feel like forcing one, nothing wrong is found. The vast majority of users will be in this same boat. The vast majority of the time there simply is no reason to fsck. You might suggest that they do it every once in a while, but most people will just say no, and the only result will almost certainly be that they spend less time waiting to boot up. Windows runs on the same potentially flakey hardware that Linux does, and it doesn't routinely perform a chkdsk. Most people are quite happy with this and only need to chkdsk when something goes wrong and they suspect filesystem damage. The argument about random hardware corruption does not hold up in the face of this evidence. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
I completely like the LVM idea, as I was saying on IRC a bit ago, that would really be an elegant system. LVM up root, and whatever other chosen disks, and safely check that in the background (possibly a nice notification icon even?) and pop up a ping box when an error is found (the level of error it goes into rigorous fsck mode being user configurable, but shipping with a default of some sort, tbd later) this would REALLY cut down on issues... The only discrepancy here is what happens when the disk is corrupted to a high degree and we try to boot it? Fairly simple yet also complex response to that. It would have to work similar to bulletproof X... though obviously on a lower level. We could flag to a safe location to fsck on boot. Or even have a special grub entry that fscks automatically, that would be interesting. The first being more elegant, though rather hard... it would require us to have a safe-zone to store this sort of small information. And we have no idea what part of the FS/Disk could be bad. Possibly a combination of the two might be in order. Honestly it is a tad complex but it is REALLY a cool idea. We should write up a formal spec and see where it goes, still needs some development, but it's really promising In my opinion. John Dong wrote: A partial check doesn't make sense with the current fsck tools AFAIK. We should do a full filesystem check if anything, and if a user decides to abort it, it's his choice. There should be a graphical or otherwise easily accessible way of re-touching the /forcefsck flag so that users can choose which bootup to do a check on. Another idea is on LVM-capable systems to take a snapshot of important filesystems while they are unmounted or read-only then fsck the snapshot device as a background task. If any serious errors are detected in the snapshot, then schedule an uncancelable boot scan. I agree with everyone who says that the current fsck experience is a blemish to Ubuntu's general user-friendliness, and also that we should not be entirely removing the regular fsck as it catches hardware irregularities and potential software bugs with ext3. John On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 01:25:54PM +0200, Vincenzo Ciancia wrote: Problem is that users will just skip the test, and get tired of having to skip the test each time. Perhaps an alternative would be to check only a part of the filesystem (e.g. randomly choosen) each time, but I don't know enough about filesystem (even though I should :) ) to say it's impossible or feasible. Vincenzo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
The main roadblock in my mind is that few people use LVM as the main installer doesn't support it. Also, I have no idea how sane this idea is in terms of the abilities of ext3. It's an interesting solution but probably too insane to ship in a distro. Something like autofsck is easier/less risky to implement. Since ext3 has a fsck-on-boot-if-dirty flag, we also have to deal with some sort of usplash hook for fscking during bootup too. On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 03:49:45PM -0400, Bryan Haskins wrote: Honestly it is a tad complex but it is REALLY a cool idea. We should write up a formal spec and see where it goes, still needs some development, but it's really promising In my opinion. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Restricted tab-completion is annoying
Today a website generated a PDF file for me automatically and firefox popped up and asked if I wanted to download it. I hit 'OK' and it saved 'genpdf.asp' into my downloads folder. I was surprised to find bash wouldn't tab-complete the filename. Apparently there is new (newer than dapper) bash completion code that restricts completed files based on the initial part of the command. (/etc/bash_completion) I think this sucks. I spend a lot of time at the bash prompt and use tab-completion constantly. When you are in bash, I would expect you sorta know what you are doing. One example of where I *will* have issues is if I upgrade my home media server from Dapper to Gutsy. It stores all the video from my camcorder, copies of all my CDs and DVDs, pictures from digital cameras, etc... Most of the files don't have an extension because file extensions are sorta useless in Linux. If I upgrade to Gutsy it appears I won't be able to type in 'mplayer StarTrek-WrathTAB' and have it fill in 'StarTrek-Wrath_of_Kahn'. So I guess I have two questions * Why does the tab-completion code that restricts based on command-names exist? What benefit does this restriction have to power users?? * If it's here to stay, what is the official 'ubuntu way' to disable it for people who don't like it. It appears /etc/bash_completion is owned by the bash package. If I upgrade bash, will it come back? I want it off my servers and workstations perminantly. I see nothing in /etc/defaults. -A -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: regular fsck runs are too disturbing
On 11/10/07 02:36, Phillip Susi wrote: When was the last time you had a fsck find and fix errors? I have two machines that have been running reiserfs for 2 years now and have never had to fsck, and on the rare occasion that I am bored and feel like forcing one, nothing wrong is found. That would be two days ago, before that, a month ago. Hmm, might need a new HDD :( My point is this, an fsck is an 'out of band' check, that is, a check that doesn't rely on other things. It means that while theoretically a file-system maintains its integrity, in practice it cannot. fsck is a useful tool that needs to run regularly and every 30 mounts is pretty reasonable in my opinion. The user interface it presents is a different conversation altogether. Predictability and cancellation would be good ideas to implement. I should also point out that I've been working away at a 'dirty flag' check for the dosfsck tool, but thus far an implementation has eluded me. (That and severe time constraints while I get ready for the onslaught on the World Solar Challenge web site :) -- Onno Benschop Connected via Optus B3 at S31°54'06 - E115°50'39 (Yokine, WA) -- ()/)/)()..ASCII for Onno.. |?..EBCDIC for Onno.. --- -. -. --- ..Morse for Onno.. ITmaze - ABN: 56 178 057 063 - ph: 04 1219 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Restricted tab-completion is annoying
On 10/11/07, Aaron C. de Bruyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today a website generated a PDF file for me automatically and firefox popped up and asked if I wanted to download it. I hit 'OK' and it saved ' genpdf.asp' into my downloads folder. I was surprised to find bash wouldn't tab-complete the filename. Apparently there is new (newer than dapper) bash completion code that restricts completed files based on the initial part of the command. (/etc/bash_completion) I think this sucks. I spend a lot of time at the bash prompt and use tab-completion constantly. When you are in bash, I would expect you sorta know what you are doing. One example of where I *will* have issues is if I upgrade my home media server from Dapper to Gutsy. It stores all the video from my camcorder, copies of all my CDs and DVDs, pictures from digital cameras, etc... Most of the files don't have an extension because file extensions are sorta useless in Linux. If I upgrade to Gutsy it appears I won't be able to type in 'mplayer StarTrek-WrathTAB' and have it fill in 'StarTrek-Wrath_of_Kahn'. So I guess I have two questions * Why does the tab-completion code that restricts based on command-names exist? What benefit does this restriction have to power users?? I don't see the point why filenames needs to be tab-completed on default, it does it when it's necessary. Filenames does tab-complete on certain tasks and applications, depending on what are you trying to accomplish? For example, certain applications that require an input needs to tab-complete a filename on it's parameters (i.e. rsync), and executable files like python, perl, ruby bash scripts would need tab-completion to execute. If you really want to autocomplete your filenames, you might as well make your files executable, and lastly why do you think this is necessary? -- object-oriented programming is really just a common sense extension of structured programming - Roger Sessions -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Restricted tab-completion is annoying
Ok--I'm sorry, but none of what you said made any sense to me. I don't see the point why filenames needs to be tab-completed on default, it does it when it's necessary. I'm asking why tab-completion changed from allowing tab-completion of EVERY file to being restricted. It sounds like you are asking why it needs to be on at all. My response to that is that it is a feature that people like and use. It's been that way for as long as I can remember. At least 8 years. Filenames does tab-complete on certain tasks and applications, depending on what are you trying to accomplish? Is that a question or statement? Yes, you hit tab to complete certain commands and filenames. It seems like Ubuntu is trying to be helpful by showing you only the things it thinks you need. For example, certain applications that require an input needs to tab-complete a filename on it's parameters (i.e. rsync), and executable files like python, perl, ruby bash scripts would need tab-completion to execute. Yes, that is why there is tab completion--because there are so many Linux command that take filenames as parameters. If you really want to autocomplete your filenames, you might as well make your files executable, So you are saying I should chmod +x all my videos, pictures, and music files in order to use tab-completion. That's an even worse solution. They aren't executable files. They are data files that need to be interpreted BY programs that I execute. and lastly why do you think this is necessary? Why do I think what is necessary? Tab completion? Disabling the new restrictions to tab-completion? Being able to use a feature that has been in bash forever but was recently (in my opinion) crippled? -A -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
regular fsck runs are too disturbing
For this to be true, you need another assumption: All hardware is absolutely reliable which just is not the case. ... Windows runs on the same potentially flakey hardware that Linux does, and it doesn't routinely perform a chkdsk. Most people are quite happy with this and only need to chkdsk when something goes wrong and they suspect filesystem damage. The argument about random hardware corruption does not hold up in the face of this evidence. Yes, but... Running fsck unconditionally every N boots is a crude solution. It ignores the fact that some systems have done millions of file operations and others have done a few thousand. It ignores the availability of hardware health/status information available from modern disks (different for every make/model?). So my question is: can it be made IO volume dependent? Can it make use of hardware status information (i.e. run fsck unconditionally if there were more than normal rate of soft errors (ECC corrections) or bad tracks)? -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
