[Bug 1838607] Re: vaultlocker service fails when some interface are DOWN with NO-CARRIER

Validation for Bionic from James Page PPA. I created a bionic VM, configured vault on another machine and installed vaultlocker from the repo. Used vaultlocker to encrypt a partition: lsblk NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT sda

[Bug 1838607] Re: vaultlocker service fails when some interface are DOWN with NO-CARRIER

Validation for eoan. I created an eoan VM, configured vault on another machine and installed vaultlocker from the repo. Used vaultlocker to encrypt a partition: lsblk lsblk NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT loop0

[Bug 1838607] Re: vaultlocker service fails when some interface are DOWN with NO-CARRIER

James, Brian, Now that it has been tested and validated that the change works for Disco and Eoan, I guess that we'll have to wait 7 more days to have it in {disco,eoan}-proposed. What about Bionic? Is it possible to backport it? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member

[Bug 1838607] Re: vaultlocker service fails when some interface are DOWN with NO-CARRIER

Validation for disco. I created a disco VM, configured vault on another machine and installed vaultlocker from the repo. Used vaultlocker to encrypt a partition: lsblk NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT loop0

[Bug 1838607] Re: vaultlocker service fails when some interface are DOWN with NO-CARRIER

Could we please backport it and make it available to Bionic? I faced that again for another customer deployment. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1838607 Title: vaultlocker service

[Bug 1828351] Re: RAID 10 with MegaRaid controller gives poor write performance

Unsubscribing field-critical and marking as invalid. The main reason of this was that bcache was not tuned automatically. ** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete => Invalid -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to

[Bug 1828351] [NEW] RAID 10 with MegaRaid controller gives poor write performance

Public bug reported: On a Bionic server (Cisco UCS C240 M5) with a MegaRaid controller (Cisco 12G Modular Raid Controller UCSC-RAID-M5), I can observe very slow writes on the RAID 10 device that was created. A simple test: dd if=/dev/zero of=out bs=1M count=100 Outputs a 35MB/s speed. The RAID

[Bug 1828351] Re: RAID 10 with MegaRaid controller gives poor write performance

Subscribing field-critical as it is blocking an ongoing deployment -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1828351 Title: RAID 10 with MegaRaid controller gives poor write performance To

[Bug 1819067] Re: cloud-init SRU: 18.5-21-g8ee294d5-0ubuntu1 -> 18.5-45-g3554ffe8-0ubuntu1

I tested on Bionic: * netplan: Don't render yaml aliases when dumping netplan (LP: #1815051) And it was successful for me. The issue described in LP: #1815051 does not appear. I will not update the tag for Bionic as I did not test the other issues. -- You received this bug notification because

[Bug 1815051] Re: Bionic netplan render invalid yaml duplicate anchor declaration for nameserver entries

@Joshua Thanks a lot for your help! -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1815051 Title: Bionic netplan render invalid yaml duplicate anchor declaration for nameserver entries To manage

[Bug 1815051] Re: Bionic netplan render invalid yaml duplicate anchor declaration for nameserver entries

Subscribing field-critical as it blocks a deployment -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1815051 Title: Bionic netplan render invalid yaml duplicate anchor declaration for nameserver