On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Sander Smeenk <ssme...@freshdot.net> wrote:
> Hello list, > > I recently got directed here from ubuntu-devel-discuss with my > pet-peeves on how i think Ubuntu Server is not really tailored for > servers [anymore], the thread of which you can read up on here: > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2013-January/014163.html > > I wrote about these issues in an earlier thread on this list too: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-server/2011-April/thread.html > > Basically it boils down to quotes from the above shown threads; > | "I like to be able to watch the [boot] process happen. [ .. ] I don't > | care if my server looks pretty when it's booting. I do care that I > | can see at what point in the boot process a catastrophic failure has > | occurred." > and; > | "[ .. ] under no circumstance should a server blindly come up in a mode > | in which it cannot display to a virtual console. Never. Ever. No Excuse." > > In fact, and i really, *really* don't mean to insult any one involved in > ubuntu-server development, but i kind-of wonder if the people putting > all this hard work in ubuntu-server are actually using ubuntu-server on a > daily basis on more than one system like a lot of sysadmins like myself > do. > > Me and my team manage roughly 200 servers running Ubuntu. We encounter > situations where we have old CRT monitors, shady KVM-switches and crappy > ILOM/ELOM/DRAC java implementations with which we have to manage our > servers. Situations where (we/the customer) botched something up which > makes the bootprocess fail, etc. > > Framebuffers, or rather 'special video modes', are somewhat unstable on > server hardware and/or plain right incompatible with shady KVM > implementations which are, unfortunately, commonly used in colocated > environments. > > What i really want to know is 'why' all this is necessary on server > installs ad what we / i can do to get a clearer view on what is > actually going on during boot. > > The path Ubuntu Server followed from Ubuntu Desktop is to depend on > framebuffers and upstart during boot and to switch off the GRUB menu > by default. > > I'd like to propose the (re)introduction of a special '-server' kernel > which has no framebuffers enabled? Some mechanism to tune GRUB into > verbose, 80x24 text mode when installed on a Server setup? Implement > 'tee(1)' functionality in Upstart perhaps? > > Is any of this discussable? > > With warm regards, > -Sander. > -- > | 0 bottles of beer on the wall, 0 bottles of beer, you take 1 down, > | pass it around, 4294967295 bottles of beer on the wall. > | 4096R/20CC6CD2 - 6D40 1A20 B9AA 87D4 84C7 FBD6 F3A9 9442 20CC 6CD2 > > -- > ubuntu-server mailing list > ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server > More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam > I whole-heartedly agree with every sentiment! Also, there are related issues when running ubuntu-server as a VM on kvm (or technically, the minimal virtual install version). I tend to use serial consoles for my vm's, so that I can access them via ssh, and it's a pain to get boot output sent to the serial console and not the vnc consoles... Just wanted to add that pet peeve to the above list as it's related... Doug -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
-- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
