cloud

cloud@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org

3122 discussions

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Cloud Workgroup
by dusty＠dustymabe.com 13 Sep '22

13 Sep '22

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Cloud Workgroup on 2022-09-15 from 15:00:00 to 16:00:00 UTC At fedora-meeting-1(a)irc.libera.chat The meeting will be about: Standing meeting for the Fedora Cloud Workgroup Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/1999/

1 0

🪑 Rotating meeting chair?
by Major Hayden 06 Sep '22

06 Sep '22

Hey everyone, A few more people asked me about how to get involved in Fedora Cloud and one of my usual suggestions is "come to a meeting!" However, the meetings are always falling on David to run (thank you, David!) and it might be nice to set up some kind of a rotating meeting chair. This seems to work well in FESCo-land and we might be able to adopt a similar meeting process[0]. We normally ask if someone is interested in being the chair for the next meeting just before a meeting ends. These meetings will likely become more important as we work through the remaining items required to restore the Cloud Base to an official Fedora Edition[1]. Thoughts? I'm happy to throw my hat in the ring for one of the upcoming meetings. [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo_meeting_process [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RestoreCloudEdition -- Major Hayden

3 4

Fedora Cloud Meeting Minutes 2022-09-01
by Duncan, David 06 Sep '22

06 Sep '22

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2022-09-01/fpc.2022-09-0… Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2022-09-01/fpc.2022-09-0… Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2022-09-01/fpc.2022-09-0… Watch this issue https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10876 for changes to the name of the files from “fpc” to “fedora_cloud_meeting”. There was a zodbot clobbering. ======================================= #fedora-meeting-1: fedora_cloud_meeting ======================================= Meeting started by davdunc at 15:13:15 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2022-09-01/fpc.2022-09-0… . Meeting summary --------------- * roll call (davdunc, 15:13:28) * Action items from last meeting (davdunc, 15:18:50) * kickstart for the azure marketplace (davdunc, 15:23:58) * LINK: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2849 (cjp256, 15:24:56) * LINK: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2849 (davdunc, 15:25:06) * LINK: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-detect-virt.html (Eighth_Doctor, 15:32:13) Meeting ended at 16:04:07 UTC. Action Items ------------ Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * davdunc (59) * zodbot (24) * mhayden (23) * sgallagh (21) * dduffey (13) * Eighth_Doctor (12) * cjp256 (10) * geppetto (4) * spotz (2) * gotmax (2) * mikelo (1) * ngompa (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.4 .. _`MeetBot`: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions

1 1

Request for testing: Fedora 37 pre-Beta validation tests
by Adam Williamson 31 Aug '22

31 Aug '22

Hey folks! So we're in freeze for Fedora 37 Beta now, and the first go/no-go meeting should be on September 8. It would be really great if we can get the validation tests run now so we can find any remaining blocker bugs in good time to get them fixed. Right now the blocker list looks short, but there are definitely some tests that have not been run. You can use the testcase_stats view to find tests that need running: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/37/ For each validation test set (Base, Desktop etc.) it shows when each test was last performed. So you can easily look for Basic and Beta tests that have not yet been run. We need to run all of these. You can enter results using `relval report-results`, or edit the summary results page at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Current_Summary . That's a redirect link which will always point to the validation results page for the currently-nominated compose, which right now is 20220826.n.0. Sumantro will be running a validation 'test week' starting on Wednesday, so you can drop by the Fedora Test Day room on chat.fedoraproject.org to hang out with other testers and get any help you need in testing. See https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test-announce@lists.fedorapro… for that announcement. Thanks folks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net

4 4

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Cloud Workgroup
by dusty＠dustymabe.com 30 Aug '22

30 Aug '22

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Cloud Workgroup on 2022-09-01 from 15:00:00 to 16:00:00 UTC At fedora-meeting-1(a)irc.libera.chat The meeting will be about: Standing meeting for the Fedora Cloud Workgroup Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/1999/

1 0

Heads-up / for discussion: dnf not working with 1G of RAM or less
by Adam Williamson 29 Aug '22

29 Aug '22

Hey folks! I apologize for the wide distribution, but this seemed like a bug it'd be appropriate to get a wide range of input on. There's a bug that was proposed as an F37 Beta blocker: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1907030 it's quite an old bug, but up until recently, the summary was apparently accurate - dnf would run out of memory with 512M of RAM, but was OK with 1G. However, as of quite recently, on F36 at least (not sure if anyone's explicitly tested F37), dnf operations are commonly failing on VMs/containers with 1G of RAM due to running out of RAM and getting OOM-killed. There's some discussion in the bug about what might be causing this and potential ways to resolve it, and please do dig into/contribute to that if you can, but the other question here I guess is: how much do we care about this? How bad is it that you can't reliably run dnf operations on top of a minimal Fedora environment with 1G of RAM? This obviously has some overlap with our stated hardware requirements, so here they are for the record: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/latest/release-notes/welcome/Ha… that specifies 2GB as the minimum memory for "the default installation", by which I think it's referring to a default Workstation install, though this should be clarified. But then there's a "Low memory installations" boxout, which suggests that "users with less than 768MB of system memory may have better results performing a minimal install and adding to it afterward", which kinda is recommending that people do exactly the thing that doesn't work (do a minimal install then use dnf on it), and implying it'll work. After some consideration I don't think it makes sense to take this bug as an F37 blocker, since it already affects F36, and that's what I'll be suggesting at the next blocker review meeting. However, it does seem a perfect candidate for prioritized bug status, and I've nominated it for that. I guess if folks can chime in with thoughts here and/or in the bug report, maybe a consensus will emerge on just how big of an issue this is (and how likely it is to get fixed). There will presumably be a FESCo ticket related to prioritized bug status too. Thanks folks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net

2 1

Cancelling the IRC meeting today
by Duncan, David 18 Aug '22

18 Aug '22

Cancelling the meeting today because devconf_us is going on. If you have pressing business, The meeting time is available still for cloud-sig business and if you feel like there is something you need to discuss, please follow the guidelines in the README.md from the cloud repository: https://pagure.io/cloud-sig David Duncan | Partner Solutions Architect

1 0

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Cloud Workgroup
by dusty＠dustymabe.com 16 Aug '22

16 Aug '22

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Cloud Workgroup on 2022-08-18 from 15:00:00 to 16:00:00 UTC At fedora-meeting-1(a)irc.libera.chat The meeting will be about: Standing meeting for the Fedora Cloud Workgroup Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/1999/

1 0

do we need Plymouth?
by Chris Murphy 09 Aug '22

09 Aug '22

cc: cloud@, server@ fpo Hi, When troubleshooting early boot issues with a console, e.g. virsh console, or the virt-manager console, or even a server's remote management console providing a kind of virtual serial console... the boot scroll is completely wiped. This is a new behavior in the last, I'm not sure, 6-12 months? Everything before about 3 seconds is cleared as if the console reset command was used, as in it wipes my local scrollback. I captured this with the script command, and when I cat this 76K file, it even wipes the local console again. So there is some kind of control character that's ordering my local console to do this. The file itself contains the full kernel messages. I just can't cat it. I have to open it in a text editor that ignores this embedded console reset command. With the help of @glb, we discovered that this is almost certainly Plymouth. When I boot with parameter plymouth.enable=0 the problem doesn't happen. And hence the higher level question if we really even need Plymouth in Server or Cloud editions? I suppose ideally we'd track down the problem and fix plymouth, so that existing installations get fixed. Whereas if we remove plymouth, we have to ponder whether and how to remove plymouth from existing installations. Unless we flat out aren't using it at all. Any ideas? Plymouth is in the @core group in fedora-comps, so pretty much everything gets it. https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/blob/main/f/comps-f37.xml.in#_635 -- Chris Murphy

3 4

Guidelines for changes to cloud images
by Major Hayden 28 Jul '22

28 Jul '22

Howdy, I'd like to propose that we assemble some guidelines (and/or guiding principles) around what goes into the Fedora cloud image and how we assess making changes to the cloud image. WHY IS THIS RELEVANT? Cloud images are essentially highly-opinionated installations of Fedora meant for cloud instances. They contain a certain set of packages with a small amount of modifications and they're all packaged into a container (such as a qcow2 or raw image) that is fit for importing into cloud. Any changes made to the image could improve or harm the user experience. Some users are sensitive to changes in disk or RAM usage, especially for smaller instances. Other users want more packages in the base installation to speed up ephemeral cloud operations (such as CI/CD, batch workloads, etc). HOW DOES IT WORK NOW? The Cloud SIG handles proposed cloud image changes during meetings. Although this is efficient for most modifications, decisions are subjective and are based on Cloud SIG members' experiences. The process doesn't lay out the considerations that someone should think about as they propose a change. WHAT COULD WE DO? I propose that we create a set of image guidelines that defines the goals of the cloud image contents so that anyone who wants to propose a change can understand how their potential change could improve or degrade the user experience. These guidelines would become the backbone of a review of a potential change and review process for the Cloud SIG. The guidelines should contain questions that the Cloud SIG would like to see answered before making a decision. Possible questions could include: * Does your change introduce additional dependencies? * Does your change affect disk usage or RAM utilization? * How does the change affect users who used the previous version of the image and now use this new image? * What is the anticipated user benefit of the change? Results of previous decisions should be shown near the guidelines so people can understand what was proposed before and why it was accepted or not accepted. For example, we've had discussions around enabling firewalld at boot time in the cloud image and it would be nice to have a clear, concise message around why that is not done at this time. If something changes later that makes it worth adding a firewall at boot time, someone could say "oh, this is much easier now than it was before and here's why...". It would make sense to keep this document version controlled in a wiki or documentation somewhere so that anyone could propose updates to the guidelines over time as Fedora evolves. I'd be happy to lead this effort within the SIG and draft an initial set of guidelines if this sounds valuable to other people! 😉 Thanks for reading this far! -- Major Hayden

3 3

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

cloud