RE: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hopefully this will be helpful to folks wanting familiar server console behavior for Lucid 10.04. First we killed the frame buffer, took out the splash screen and turned kernel messages back on: http://staff.adams.edu/~cdmiller/posts/Ubuntu-Lucid-server-text-console/ It is possible to get a fast frame buffer, vesafb with vga=0x314 for example, but for some reason it kills kernel boot messages. So we stuck with text. On finding we could not remove Plymouth in a nice way, we disabled it: http://staff.adams.edu/~cdmiller/posts/Ubuntu-Lucid-server-disable-plymouth/ I wouldn't be so hard on Plymouth if it were not for the ludicrous package dependencies set up to guard it's existence. Probably a good reason for that, just not explained clearly anywhere I looked. Finally, we enabled more verbosity for Upstart to get useful console and boot logging: http://staff.adams.edu/~cdmiller/posts/Ubuntu-Lucid-server-upstart/ In the end we worked around the default console configuration issues with our Lucid server KVM guests and have a nice text console. - - cameron - -- - - cameron miller - - Server Team Lead - - outhouse attendant, bricoleur - - http://staff.adams.edu/~cdmiller -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFMO57xJ62kxkSCtLARArXaAKDBWWCMcBXQXyM8y5NwtMtPtFEzmACg2G9Y xlU9HvsufKgKqPlN2d7btM8= =YSZy -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
On 03/29/2010 11:03 AM, Tom Ellis wrote: > Nikolai K. Bochev wrote: >> Didn't centos have a boot splash that can show the boot process in a small >> console window ? Or was it SuSe ? >> So you get the pretty booting splash with a nice progress bar, but if you >> want, you can click on an arrow to open the console and watch the boot >> process. >> It's both "enterprisey" and informative. > > This was RHGB which has it's own bunch of issues, which Plymouth was > designed to replace. Plymouth is the way forward, but I agree we need to > be able to display some output of the standard init scripts like in > previous releases. Removing splash and quiet increases verbosity of the > boot sequence but I still see zero output from the run of the mill > server services, apache etc. > > This may be just a bug with where the output is being redirected, > perhaps we can leverage some of the work in other distributions running > Plymouth to see if the same issue is encountered? It's not really a server issue, but it could be related to booting. I've just updated my Karmic to Lucid on my laptop. I have an ecrypted home partition (with LUKS). I did not install it this way, but converted it later my hand. Now with Lucid I have problems on every boot. It asks me for the password (a nice textbox appears on the splash screen), but then it just waits there and I have to press S (skip) or M (mount/manual?), which doesn't work and I get a shell where I can mount it manually. I tried with nofb and without quiet and splash at the beginning, now it asks me in text mode, but the same thing happens, it's just sitting there, after I input the passphrase. I'm not even mentioning that there's no clear prompt because it's overwritten with other messages / scrolls up. Does anybody else have a problem with encrypted partitions at boot time? -- Imre Gergely Yahoo!: gergelyimre | ICQ#: 101510959 MSN: gergely_imre | GoogleTalk: gergelyimre gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 0x34525305 -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Nikolai K. Bochev wrote: > Didn't centos have a boot splash that can show the boot process in a small > console window ? Or was it SuSe ? > So you get the pretty booting splash with a nice progress bar, but if you > want, you can click on an arrow to open the console and watch the boot > process. > It's both "enterprisey" and informative. This was RHGB which has it's own bunch of issues, which Plymouth was designed to replace. Plymouth is the way forward, but I agree we need to be able to display some output of the standard init scripts like in previous releases. Removing splash and quiet increases verbosity of the boot sequence but I still see zero output from the run of the mill server services, apache etc. This may be just a bug with where the output is being redirected, perhaps we can leverage some of the work in other distributions running Plymouth to see if the same issue is encountered? - -- Regards, Tom Ellis Premium Service Engineer - Canonical GPG: EEC4 4552 B57E D9BD 7E57 F7F5 3990 6F7D 063C 355A -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkuwXuAACgkQOZBvfQY8NVrDVwCdGKTKx3xW9D6xnqmuFnyoyC66 LnEAn27+aeNjK+DImXPJRi2XSOyRF753 =wSeI -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
Didn't centos have a boot splash that can show the boot process in a small console window ? Or was it SuSe ? So you get the pretty booting splash with a nice progress bar, but if you want, you can click on an arrow to open the console and watch the boot process. It's both "enterprisey" and informative. - "Soren Hansen" wrote: > The boot process as it is (and has been for years) already doesn't > give > > a whole lot of information. You usually have correlate its output with > > syslog and/or dmesg and/or deamon specific log files to really narrow > > down on a problem. > > > > That said, Plymouth is actually supposed to make this /better/. I'm > not > > sure if that's going to happen for Lucid (it's not really my area), > but > > the idea is that since there's something in charge of collecting > output > > from boot scripts and presenting it to the user, that something can > also > > put this information in a log file. This means that that anyhing you > see > > during boot should end up in a log file which should alleviate the > need > > for looking at the boot sequence. > > > > Yes, that's a lot of "should"'s, but I'm afraid that's all I have > right > > now. Someone else may be able to weigh in with some more authoritative > > information or at least more detail. > That's simply not true. /You/ may not have asked for it, but it's > > certainly been asked for. I myself, for instance, don't mind a pretty > > boot sequence (brief as it may be). > I like to think that we do. However, please consider that the > community > > is diverse as are its opinions on different matters. -- Nikolai K. Bochev System Administrator -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
On Friday 26 March 2010 19:15:09 Etienne Goyer wrote: > 'Soren Hansen' wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 09:42:19AM +0100, Egbert Jan wrote: > >> But what heck, nobody asked to have fancy server bootspash screens on > >> servers. > > > > That's simply not true. /You/ may not have asked for it, but it's > > certainly been asked for. I myself, for instance, don't mind a pretty > > boot sequence (brief as it may be). > > I have not seen anybody complaining on the look of the Server Edition > boot process either. Was that discussed at a UDS, or something? If so, > I must have missed the blueprint. > > Just because of the potential for regressions and unforeseen problems, I > think it is a terrible idea to introduce that feature in an LTS cycle. > I hope it get backed out before release. I haven't seen the Lucid boot process yet, and that is the sole reason for not having complained yet. Currently, we lack every form of boot logging. Some bugs on Launchpad have pictures of the boot process attached to them, taken by a digital camera. In Karmic, there were several bugs introduced by mountall/upstart/plymouth. See the latest comments of https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/470776 Error messages will be hidden by default. The specific error messages here can sometimes be correct, and sometimes be wrong. Most people will rather see the source of that problem fixed instead of covered up with a nice animation. As a server administrator, I'm not interested in fast boot times, nor in fancy graphics. I'm interested in reliable booting and knowing what is going on. I'd like to have upstart because it eliminates the need to set a specific order in the processes (no more rcX), but I'd never sacrifice reliability for that. -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
'Soren Hansen' wrote: > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 09:42:19AM +0100, Egbert Jan wrote: >> But what heck, nobody asked to have fancy server bootspash screens on >> servers. > > That's simply not true. /You/ may not have asked for it, but it's > certainly been asked for. I myself, for instance, don't mind a pretty > boot sequence (brief as it may be). I have not seen anybody complaining on the look of the Server Edition boot process either. Was that discussed at a UDS, or something? If so, I must have missed the blueprint. Just because of the potential for regressions and unforeseen problems, I think it is a terrible idea to introduce that feature in an LTS cycle. I hope it get backed out before release. -- Etienne Goyer Technical Account Manager - Canonical Ltd Ubuntu Certified Instructor -LPIC-3 ~= Ubuntu: Linux for Human Beings =~ -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 09:42:19AM +0100, Egbert Jan wrote: > Because IF I need to attach a console I do that to catch each and > every information that could help me find any problems during boot. The boot process as it is (and has been for years) already doesn't give a whole lot of information. You usually have correlate its output with syslog and/or dmesg and/or deamon specific log files to really narrow down on a problem. That said, Plymouth is actually supposed to make this /better/. I'm not sure if that's going to happen for Lucid (it's not really my area), but the idea is that since there's something in charge of collecting output from boot scripts and presenting it to the user, that something can also put this information in a log file. This means that that anyhing you see during boot should end up in a log file which should alleviate the need for looking at the boot sequence. Yes, that's a lot of "should"'s, but I'm afraid that's all I have right now. Someone else may be able to weigh in with some more authoritative information or at least more detail. > But what heck, nobody asked to have fancy server bootspash screens on > servers. That's simply not true. /You/ may not have asked for it, but it's certainly been asked for. I myself, for instance, don't mind a pretty boot sequence (brief as it may be). > PS I switched from years and years of Mandriva usage to Ubuntu because > I got the impression that Ubuntu developers WERE paying attention to > what the community wants. I like to think that we do. However, please consider that the community is diverse as are its opinions on different matters. -- Soren Hansen Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
Le 26/03/2010 09:42, Egbert Jan wrote: > But what heck, nobody asked to have fancy server bootspash screens on > servers. If that is the new way of working, fine but just give us the > possibility to have a boot option to have all starting services scrolling > over the screen (and hopefully an 'OK' on the right). Please follow status on Launchpad bug 548954: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-meta/+bug/548954 That bug doesn't need comments on how desirable it is, though patches and testers are always welcome. -- Thierry Carrez Technical lead, Ubuntu server team -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
Egbert Jan wrote:
> Hi again Soren,
>
> Because IF I need to attach a console I do that to catch each and every
> information that could help me find any problems during boot.
>
> I'm from a old era. VAXVMS on DEC mini's. There were only servers and
> character terminals. There were no VGA output devices. I want (and I think
> many with me) the simple all revealing line oriented logging during the boot
> process on a simple serial or console port. No bells, no wistles. If
> something goes wrong during the boot we want to know and have informative
> output at hand on (simple) output devices. Not hidden in high level messages
> in fancy screens.
>
> But what heck, nobody asked to have fancy server bootspash screens on
> servers. If that is the new way of working, fine but just give us the
> possibility to have a boot option to have all starting services scrolling
> over the screen (and hopefully an 'OK' on the right).
>
> No hard feelings, I also want this distro to be the best.
> Egbert Jan (NL)
>
> PS I switched from years and years of Mandriva usage to Ubuntu because I got
> the impression that Ubuntu developers WERE paying attention to what the
> community wants.
>
>
+1 and totally agree with Egbert.
If Ubuntu/Canonical would like to have a serious server ditro, usplash,
plymouth and
similiar technologies aren't need on server edition and they were disabled by
default.
Server edition needs to be stable, robust, administrable via command line. The
remaining surplus.
--
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com
--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
RE: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
Hi again Soren, Because IF I need to attach a console I do that to catch each and every information that could help me find any problems during boot. I'm from a old era. VAXVMS on DEC mini's. There were only servers and character terminals. There were no VGA output devices. I want (and I think many with me) the simple all revealing line oriented logging during the boot process on a simple serial or console port. No bells, no wistles. If something goes wrong during the boot we want to know and have informative output at hand on (simple) output devices. Not hidden in high level messages in fancy screens. But what heck, nobody asked to have fancy server bootspash screens on servers. If that is the new way of working, fine but just give us the possibility to have a boot option to have all starting services scrolling over the screen (and hopefully an 'OK' on the right). No hard feelings, I also want this distro to be the best. Egbert Jan (NL) PS I switched from years and years of Mandriva usage to Ubuntu because I got the impression that Ubuntu developers WERE paying attention to what the community wants. > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: 'Soren Hansen' [mailto:so...@ubuntu.com] > Verzonden: donderdag 25 maart 2010 23:02 > Aan: Egbert Jan > Onderwerp: Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04 > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:20:20PM +0100, Egbert Jan wrote: > > I just expressed my fear that the Good Old boot messages are being > > replaced by nothing-saying desktop output. IF > ubuntu/canonical really > > keeps this new booting as default with no easy install > option, I'm off > > to Debian, but with bleeding heart. > > I still don't understand your argument. Why do you care > what's on the VGA output (or not) if you don't have a monitor > attached to it? > > -- > Soren Hansen > Ubuntu Developer > http://www.ubuntu.com/ > -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
RE: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: Soren Hansen [mailto:so...@ubuntu.com] > Verzonden: donderdag 25 maart 2010 19:22 > Aan: Egbert Jan van den Bussche > CC: ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > Onderwerp: Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04 > > > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:07:51PM +0100, Egbert Jan van den > Bussche wrote: > > I have not tried any of the alpha or beta releases yet. But > now I see > > Micheal's horror story. PLEASE do not assume that a server > can display > > ANY kind of graphics. All my servers run headles and can only be > > logged in with ssh. If really no other way, I have to bring a > > keyboard/display to the rack... Again please let the init messages > > flow over our consoles. > > Silly question perhaps, but if they're headless why do you > care a whole lot about what's being shown? > > -- > Soren Hansen > Ubuntu Developer > http://www.ubuntu.com/ > Well, it is always possible to hook something up. Not nessarily capable of doing fancy graphics. Egbert Jan -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
Just because they're headless doesn't mean that we wouldn't want to see what all is happening when it boots, especially if there's a problem. For instance we have a lot of HP and Sun x86 infrastructure, and their LOMs can display graphics, but we prefer to use the text console for imaging and troubleshooting. Using a null-modem serial connection is also a common occurrence on severely distressed hosts. As most of us sysadmins know 99% of the time a system will boot without an issue, but it's that 1% of them royally screwing up that we need this type of verbosity. Having it boot sequentially and in text (or the options to do so) is essential for systems a data center. I would think this would be default and am still perplexed on why a graphical splash screen on boot in the server edition is default. I really want Ubuntu Server to flourish and am doing my best to make it a fully supported as major distribution option in our physical and virtual data centers. Unfortunately though this effort is stalled due to not meeting core functionality requirements like this. I've worked around the issue as much as I can but I've hit a wall since this design of upstart/plymouth are core features of the 10.04 release. My boot wish list for Ubuntu Server is this: 1. Grub menu enabled by default with a timeout and "quiet" option removed in order to display kernel messages on boot. 2. Plymouth removed or disabled, printing all boot messages to tty1 in standard text with no framebuffer. 3. Upstart in sysvinit compatibility mode, booting init scripts in order and not relying on event triggers. I don't want it to seem like I'm making demands and am more than willing to help out. I have access to datacenter grade hardware/software (HP and Sun x86 blade centers and single systems, and ESX, XEN, KVM virtual clusters) and am willing to test and develop for these platforms. Micheal Soren Hansen wrote: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:07:51PM +0100, Egbert Jan van den Bussche wrote: >> I have not tried any of the alpha or beta releases yet. But now I see >> Micheal's horror story. PLEASE do not assume that a server can display ANY >> kind of graphics. All my servers run headles and can only be logged in with >> ssh. If really no other way, I have to bring a keyboard/display to the >> rack... >> Again please let the init messages flow over our consoles. > > Silly question perhaps, but if they're headless why do you care a whole > lot about what's being shown? > > -- Micheal Waltz SMG Unix Infrastructure Qualcomm Inc. Phone: 858-845-6083 Cell: 858-882-7079 -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
Soren Hansen wrote: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:07:51PM +0100, Egbert Jan van den Bussche wrote: >> I have not tried any of the alpha or beta releases yet. But now I see >> Micheal's horror story. PLEASE do not assume that a server can display ANY >> kind of graphics. All my servers run headles and can only be logged in with >> ssh. If really no other way, I have to bring a keyboard/display to the >> rack... >> Again please let the init messages flow over our consoles. > > Silly question perhaps, but if they're headless why do you care a whole > lot about what's being shown? I'd imagine that it's because, if you've made the effort to head over to a rack and connect display/keyboard it's not to admire the Ubuntu branding as you machine starts; something is wrong and you want every bit of feedback the machine can give you. Desktop and Server use cases are just diametrically opposite in this respect. Some of the effort which has gone into smoothing the desktop boot process can be seen as regression on a server. I guess the effort on startup time/readahead may be useful on the server, but BIOS startup times so overwhelmingly dominate ubuntu boot time on my server hardware that there's very little to be gained even there. Best, John -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:07:51PM +0100, Egbert Jan van den Bussche wrote: > I have not tried any of the alpha or beta releases yet. But now I see > Micheal's horror story. PLEASE do not assume that a server can display ANY > kind of graphics. All my servers run headles and can only be logged in with > ssh. If really no other way, I have to bring a keyboard/display to the > rack... > Again please let the init messages flow over our consoles. Silly question perhaps, but if they're headless why do you care a whole lot about what's being shown? -- Soren Hansen Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
I would say there is, one I have issued, kind of... but since there is no do-release-upgrade in the lucid branch yet *apport-bug* got a little problem there... I had to complain about ureadahead in the bug #545596 still unresponded 2010/3/24 Etienne Goyer > Fabio T. Leitao wrote: > >> which is just fine by the way, but after I have done a # >> do-release-upgrade -d from 9.10 to 10.04 on a test environment, I have found >> out that the sreadahead was still installed, together with ureadahead, >> making the book impossibly sloooww and full of error in my logs... >> > > Sounds like a terrible bug indeed. Is there a bug open on Launchpad about > this one? If not, it would good if you could file one. > > -- > Etienne Goyer > Technical Account Manager - Canonical Ltd > Ubuntu Certified Instructor -LPIC-3 > > ~= Ubuntu: Linux for Human Beings =~ > -- Fábio Leitão ..-. .- -... .. --- .-.. . .. - .- --- ...-.- -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
Fabio T. Leitao wrote: > which is just fine by the way, but after I have done a # > do-release-upgrade -d from 9.10 to 10.04 on a test environment, I have > found out that the sreadahead was still installed, together with > ureadahead, making the book impossibly sloooww and full of error in my > logs... Sounds like a terrible bug indeed. Is there a bug open on Launchpad about this one? If not, it would good if you could file one. -- Etienne Goyer Technical Account Manager - Canonical Ltd Ubuntu Certified Instructor -LPIC-3 ~= Ubuntu: Linux for Human Beings =~ -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
By the way, I always try the server distro on a notebook due to the great chance for problems... when I am happy with it, I try the on a desktop hardware too... and only then on a server system.. each one has its particulars, but the OS it self sould be able to work on them all... since the major difference sould be only the clock ticker (if not mistaken) the transformation to "desktop" usually is as easy as an apt-get install ubuntu-desktop anyway (and may be a few autoremoves --purge also) 2010/3/23 Fabio T. Leitao > my test system is a physical hardware (hp dv2000 notebook) but it happens > since the first boot from upgrade.. I have found the same ticket and it oded > me being invalid yet with so many logs... I got to be an issue, though not > in the ureadahead it self, but something solvable > > 2010/3/23 Michael Waltz > > I'm getting the same error "ureadahead-other main process (###) terminated >> with status 4", although I think it may be due to it running on ESX. It >> appears there is a bug report open for it, 484677, with a lot of replies, >> but it's marked as invalid. >> >> I'm going to try 10.04 on some physical hardware this week and see if it >> gives the same errors. >> >> Micheal >> >> Fabio T. Leitao wrote: >> >>> another peculiar change in the boot, it no longer uses sreadahead, >>> replaced by ureadahead... >>> >>> which is just fine by the way, but after I have done a # >>> do-release-upgrade -d from 9.10 to 10.04 on a test environment, I have found >>> out that the sreadahead was still installed, together with ureadahead, >>> making the book impossibly sloooww and full of error in my logs... >>> >>> might be an easy fix during the upgrade script, and was pretty obvious to >>> resolve, mainly because it overshut the plymouth GUI all together, echoing >>> in a bizzar purple terminal (in yellow letters) about the ureadahead exit 4 >>> ... pretty ugly combination if you ask me, but I think it was all together >>> an accident >>> >>> I should repport in apport as soon as I can recreate the steps... >>> >>> 2010/3/23 Egbert Jan van den Bussche >> egb...@vandenbussche.nl>> >>> >>> >>>I have not tried any of the alpha or beta releases yet. But now I see >>>Micheal's horror story. PLEASE do not assume that a server can >>>display ANY >>>kind of graphics. All my servers run headles and can only be logged >>>in with >>>ssh. If really no other way, I have to bring a keyboard/display to >>> the >>>rack... >>>Again please let the init messages flow over our consoles. >>> >>>Just my 2$c >>>Egbert Jan (NL) >>>HCC!Hobbynet admininistrator >>> >>> >>> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht- >>> > Van: ubuntu-server-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com >>><mailto:ubuntu-server-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com> >>> > [mailto:ubuntu-server-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com >>><mailto:ubuntu-server-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>] Namens Michael Waltz >>> > Verzonden: dinsdag 23 maart 2010 21:57 >>> > Aan: ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com >>><mailto:ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com> >>> >>> > Onderwerp: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04 >>> > >>> > >>> > After trying out the alpha and beta releases of Ubuntu I am >>> > finding that >>> > the booting method of 10.04 is greatly altered. I understand >>> > why there >>> > were made, to improve the boot time and make it look nicer, but >>> they >>> > seem to contrast with how a server should boot. >>> > >>> > With a traditional unix-like startup a server administrator >>> > expects to >>> > see what exactly is booting on the system and if there are >>> > any failures >>> > or warnings. It seems that this is not the case in 10.04 so >>> > far. When I >>> > first installed Alpha 3, grub automatically booted to the first OS >>> > listing without even listing the menu (I understand you can >>> > use ESC to >>> > go into the menu) and then plymouth took over displaying a >>> > splash screen >>> > until the login prompt without showing any boot information. >>> > >>> > Are there pl
Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
my test system is a physical hardware (hp dv2000 notebook) but it happens since the first boot from upgrade.. I have found the same ticket and it oded me being invalid yet with so many logs... I got to be an issue, though not in the ureadahead it self, but something solvable 2010/3/23 Michael Waltz > I'm getting the same error "ureadahead-other main process (###) terminated > with status 4", although I think it may be due to it running on ESX. It > appears there is a bug report open for it, 484677, with a lot of replies, > but it's marked as invalid. > > I'm going to try 10.04 on some physical hardware this week and see if it > gives the same errors. > > Micheal > > Fabio T. Leitao wrote: > >> another peculiar change in the boot, it no longer uses sreadahead, >> replaced by ureadahead... >> >> which is just fine by the way, but after I have done a # >> do-release-upgrade -d from 9.10 to 10.04 on a test environment, I have found >> out that the sreadahead was still installed, together with ureadahead, >> making the book impossibly sloooww and full of error in my logs... >> >> might be an easy fix during the upgrade script, and was pretty obvious to >> resolve, mainly because it overshut the plymouth GUI all together, echoing >> in a bizzar purple terminal (in yellow letters) about the ureadahead exit 4 >> ... pretty ugly combination if you ask me, but I think it was all together >> an accident >> >> I should repport in apport as soon as I can recreate the steps... >> >> 2010/3/23 Egbert Jan van den Bussche > egb...@vandenbussche.nl>> >> >> >>I have not tried any of the alpha or beta releases yet. But now I see >>Micheal's horror story. PLEASE do not assume that a server can >>display ANY >>kind of graphics. All my servers run headles and can only be logged >>in with >>ssh. If really no other way, I have to bring a keyboard/display to the >>rack... >>Again please let the init messages flow over our consoles. >> >>Just my 2$c >>Egbert Jan (NL) >>HCC!Hobbynet admininistrator >> >> >> > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- >> > Van: ubuntu-server-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com >><mailto:ubuntu-server-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com> >> > [mailto:ubuntu-server-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com >><mailto:ubuntu-server-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>] Namens Michael Waltz >> > Verzonden: dinsdag 23 maart 2010 21:57 >> > Aan: ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com >><mailto:ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com> >> >> > Onderwerp: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04 >> > >> > >> > After trying out the alpha and beta releases of Ubuntu I am >> > finding that >> > the booting method of 10.04 is greatly altered. I understand >> > why there >> > were made, to improve the boot time and make it look nicer, but they >> > seem to contrast with how a server should boot. >> > >> > With a traditional unix-like startup a server administrator >> > expects to >> > see what exactly is booting on the system and if there are >> > any failures >> > or warnings. It seems that this is not the case in 10.04 so >> > far. When I >> > first installed Alpha 3, grub automatically booted to the first OS >> > listing without even listing the menu (I understand you can >> > use ESC to >> > go into the menu) and then plymouth took over displaying a >> > splash screen >> > until the login prompt without showing any boot information. >> > >> > Are there plans for the 10.04 server version to keep with a >> > traditional >> > server start-up? Or is this the default we should expect upon >> > install? >> > I've changed a few things, such as enabling the grub menu with a 5 >> > second timeout, removing plymouth on install, but there are >> > still a few >> > bits that make booting seem odd. The first is that the >> > systems boots by >> > default to tty7, displaying a blank screen like it's expecting X to >> > start up. The second is I'm unable to find a way to have >> > upstart display >> > any information about what init or init.d scripts are running. >> > >> > There are a few bug reports on these items, but they're not >
Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
I'm getting the same error "ureadahead-other main process (###) terminated with status 4", although I think it may be due to it running on ESX. It appears there is a bug report open for it, 484677, with a lot of replies, but it's marked as invalid. I'm going to try 10.04 on some physical hardware this week and see if it gives the same errors. Micheal Fabio T. Leitao wrote: > another peculiar change in the boot, it no longer uses sreadahead, > replaced by ureadahead... > > which is just fine by the way, but after I have done a # > do-release-upgrade -d from 9.10 to 10.04 on a test environment, I have > found out that the sreadahead was still installed, together with > ureadahead, making the book impossibly sloooww and full of error in my > logs... > > might be an easy fix during the upgrade script, and was pretty obvious > to resolve, mainly because it overshut the plymouth GUI all together, > echoing in a bizzar purple terminal (in yellow letters) about the > ureadahead exit 4 ... pretty ugly combination if you ask me, but I think > it was all together an accident > > I should repport in apport as soon as I can recreate the steps... > > 2010/3/23 Egbert Jan van den Bussche <mailto:egb...@vandenbussche.nl>> > > I have not tried any of the alpha or beta releases yet. But now I see > Micheal's horror story. PLEASE do not assume that a server can > display ANY > kind of graphics. All my servers run headles and can only be logged > in with > ssh. If really no other way, I have to bring a keyboard/display to the > rack... > Again please let the init messages flow over our consoles. > > Just my 2$c > Egbert Jan (NL) > HCC!Hobbynet admininistrator > > > > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > > Van: ubuntu-server-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com > <mailto:ubuntu-server-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com> > > [mailto:ubuntu-server-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com > <mailto:ubuntu-server-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com>] Namens Michael Waltz > > Verzonden: dinsdag 23 maart 2010 21:57 > > Aan: ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > <mailto:ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com> > > Onderwerp: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04 > > > > > > After trying out the alpha and beta releases of Ubuntu I am > > finding that > > the booting method of 10.04 is greatly altered. I understand > > why there > > were made, to improve the boot time and make it look nicer, but they > > seem to contrast with how a server should boot. > > > > With a traditional unix-like startup a server administrator > > expects to > > see what exactly is booting on the system and if there are > > any failures > > or warnings. It seems that this is not the case in 10.04 so > > far. When I > > first installed Alpha 3, grub automatically booted to the first OS > > listing without even listing the menu (I understand you can > > use ESC to > > go into the menu) and then plymouth took over displaying a > > splash screen > > until the login prompt without showing any boot information. > > > > Are there plans for the 10.04 server version to keep with a > > traditional > > server start-up? Or is this the default we should expect upon > > install? > > I've changed a few things, such as enabling the grub menu with a 5 > > second timeout, removing plymouth on install, but there are > > still a few > > bits that make booting seem odd. The first is that the > > systems boots by > > default to tty7, displaying a blank screen like it's expecting X to > > start up. The second is I'm unable to find a way to have > > upstart display > > any information about what init or init.d scripts are running. > > > > There are a few bug reports on these items, but they're not > > necessarily > > "bugs" it seems since this is how the desktop flavor is > > suppose to work. > > > > With 10.04 server can we expect a traditional server boot or are > > individual admins going to have to enable these extra bits of > > verbosity > > manually? > > > > -- > > Micheal Waltz > > SMG Unix Infrastructure > > Qualcomm Inc. > > Phone: 858-845-6083 > > Cell: 858-882-7079 > > > > -- > > ubuntu-server mail
Re: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
another peculiar change in the boot, it no longer uses sreadahead, replaced by ureadahead... which is just fine by the way, but after I have done a # do-release-upgrade -d from 9.10 to 10.04 on a test environment, I have found out that the sreadahead was still installed, together with ureadahead, making the book impossibly sloooww and full of error in my logs... might be an easy fix during the upgrade script, and was pretty obvious to resolve, mainly because it overshut the plymouth GUI all together, echoing in a bizzar purple terminal (in yellow letters) about the ureadahead exit 4 ... pretty ugly combination if you ask me, but I think it was all together an accident I should repport in apport as soon as I can recreate the steps... 2010/3/23 Egbert Jan van den Bussche > I have not tried any of the alpha or beta releases yet. But now I see > Micheal's horror story. PLEASE do not assume that a server can display ANY > kind of graphics. All my servers run headles and can only be logged in with > ssh. If really no other way, I have to bring a keyboard/display to the > rack... > Again please let the init messages flow over our consoles. > > Just my 2$c > Egbert Jan (NL) > HCC!Hobbynet admininistrator > > > > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > > Van: ubuntu-server-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com > > [mailto:ubuntu-server-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com] Namens Michael Waltz > > Verzonden: dinsdag 23 maart 2010 21:57 > > Aan: ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > > Onderwerp: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04 > > > > > > After trying out the alpha and beta releases of Ubuntu I am > > finding that > > the booting method of 10.04 is greatly altered. I understand > > why there > > were made, to improve the boot time and make it look nicer, but they > > seem to contrast with how a server should boot. > > > > With a traditional unix-like startup a server administrator > > expects to > > see what exactly is booting on the system and if there are > > any failures > > or warnings. It seems that this is not the case in 10.04 so > > far. When I > > first installed Alpha 3, grub automatically booted to the first OS > > listing without even listing the menu (I understand you can > > use ESC to > > go into the menu) and then plymouth took over displaying a > > splash screen > > until the login prompt without showing any boot information. > > > > Are there plans for the 10.04 server version to keep with a > > traditional > > server start-up? Or is this the default we should expect upon > > install? > > I've changed a few things, such as enabling the grub menu with a 5 > > second timeout, removing plymouth on install, but there are > > still a few > > bits that make booting seem odd. The first is that the > > systems boots by > > default to tty7, displaying a blank screen like it's expecting X to > > start up. The second is I'm unable to find a way to have > > upstart display > > any information about what init or init.d scripts are running. > > > > There are a few bug reports on these items, but they're not > > necessarily > > "bugs" it seems since this is how the desktop flavor is > > suppose to work. > > > > With 10.04 server can we expect a traditional server boot or are > > individual admins going to have to enable these extra bits of > > verbosity > > manually? > > > > -- > > Micheal Waltz > > SMG Unix Infrastructure > > Qualcomm Inc. > > Phone: 858-845-6083 > > Cell: 858-882-7079 > > > > -- > > ubuntu-server mailing list > > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > > > > > -- > ubuntu-server mailing list > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > -- Fábio Leitão ..-. .- -... .. --- .-.. . .. - .- --- ...-.- -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
RE: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
I have not tried any of the alpha or beta releases yet. But now I see Micheal's horror story. PLEASE do not assume that a server can display ANY kind of graphics. All my servers run headles and can only be logged in with ssh. If really no other way, I have to bring a keyboard/display to the rack... Again please let the init messages flow over our consoles. Just my 2$c Egbert Jan (NL) HCC!Hobbynet admininistrator > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: ubuntu-server-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com > [mailto:ubuntu-server-boun...@lists.ubuntu.com] Namens Michael Waltz > Verzonden: dinsdag 23 maart 2010 21:57 > Aan: ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > Onderwerp: Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04 > > > After trying out the alpha and beta releases of Ubuntu I am > finding that > the booting method of 10.04 is greatly altered. I understand > why there > were made, to improve the boot time and make it look nicer, but they > seem to contrast with how a server should boot. > > With a traditional unix-like startup a server administrator > expects to > see what exactly is booting on the system and if there are > any failures > or warnings. It seems that this is not the case in 10.04 so > far. When I > first installed Alpha 3, grub automatically booted to the first OS > listing without even listing the menu (I understand you can > use ESC to > go into the menu) and then plymouth took over displaying a > splash screen > until the login prompt without showing any boot information. > > Are there plans for the 10.04 server version to keep with a > traditional > server start-up? Or is this the default we should expect upon > install? > I've changed a few things, such as enabling the grub menu with a 5 > second timeout, removing plymouth on install, but there are > still a few > bits that make booting seem odd. The first is that the > systems boots by > default to tty7, displaying a blank screen like it's expecting X to > start up. The second is I'm unable to find a way to have > upstart display > any information about what init or init.d scripts are running. > > There are a few bug reports on these items, but they're not > necessarily > "bugs" it seems since this is how the desktop flavor is > suppose to work. > > With 10.04 server can we expect a traditional server boot or are > individual admins going to have to enable these extra bits of > verbosity > manually? > > -- > Micheal Waltz > SMG Unix Infrastructure > Qualcomm Inc. > Phone: 858-845-6083 > Cell: 858-882-7079 > > -- > ubuntu-server mailing list > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Changes in booting with ubuntu-server 10.04
After trying out the alpha and beta releases of Ubuntu I am finding that the booting method of 10.04 is greatly altered. I understand why there were made, to improve the boot time and make it look nicer, but they seem to contrast with how a server should boot. With a traditional unix-like startup a server administrator expects to see what exactly is booting on the system and if there are any failures or warnings. It seems that this is not the case in 10.04 so far. When I first installed Alpha 3, grub automatically booted to the first OS listing without even listing the menu (I understand you can use ESC to go into the menu) and then plymouth took over displaying a splash screen until the login prompt without showing any boot information. Are there plans for the 10.04 server version to keep with a traditional server start-up? Or is this the default we should expect upon install? I've changed a few things, such as enabling the grub menu with a 5 second timeout, removing plymouth on install, but there are still a few bits that make booting seem odd. The first is that the systems boots by default to tty7, displaying a blank screen like it's expecting X to start up. The second is I'm unable to find a way to have upstart display any information about what init or init.d scripts are running. There are a few bug reports on these items, but they're not necessarily "bugs" it seems since this is how the desktop flavor is suppose to work. With 10.04 server can we expect a traditional server boot or are individual admins going to have to enable these extra bits of verbosity manually? -- Micheal Waltz SMG Unix Infrastructure Qualcomm Inc. Phone: 858-845-6083 Cell: 858-882-7079 -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
