On 05.01.2010 16:50, Alvin wrote:

> So, the bugs I mentioned in my previous post would receive higher priority. I
> only wonder whether this specific bug would be solved in karmic, because it
> needs another solution than the one that will be used for lucid. After all, is
> is already fixed.

<rant and solution>

I, and rest of the server people, were hit by this or some other
upstart/mountall/whatever bug that renders Karmic unusable in NFS
environment.

However, there's an easy workaround for this situation. Mount /home
outside of /home. For example, mount it in /media/home and then add:

mount -o bind /media/home /home

in /etc/rc.local

Machine will boot (it fails to boot cause IP/portmap/something_else is
up after "mounting network file system process") and rc.local will run
before GDM is up anyway.

</rant and solution>

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam

On Tuesday 05 January 2010 18:12:39 Ante Karamatić wrote:
> On 05.01.2010 16:50, Alvin wrote:
> > So, the bugs I mentioned in my previous post would receive higher
> > priority. I only wonder whether this specific bug would be solved in
> > karmic, because it needs another solution than the one that will be used
> > for lucid. After all, is is already fixed.
>
> <rant and solution>
>
> I, and rest of the server people, were hit by this or some other
> upstart/mountall/whatever bug that renders Karmic unusable in NFS
> environment.
>
> [...]
>
> </rant and solution>

Let's call that a workaround. There are other possibilities to work around
this, but I don't like doing a lot of stuff in rc.local that SHOULD be done by
the boot mechanism. Currently there are 3 things that need to be done after
boot.

- mount NFS shares (bug 470776)
- restart samba (bug 462169)
- restart libvirtd (bug 491273)

Only the samba bug is fixed in karmic proposed. This bug is mentioned in the
release notes. Shouldn't there be a warning in those release notes about NFS
too?

I don't care for booting under 10 seconds on a server, but I do care for
consistent booting. Right now, there are so many things going wrong that I
don't know where to begin reporting. Even error messages are wrong (504224),
and without boot logging (328881) they are the only thing we got to know what
is going wrong.

I've had a talk about all this with my colleague, and we will probably try a
support contract and see how it turns out.

--
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 work for Canonical Global Services and Support. A couple of comments:


Alvin wrote:
> I contacted Canonical a while ago, and a support contract will give you the
> right to 10 support cases per annum.

That changed recently, there's no more case limit. However, support
contract are still sold on a per-machine basis.


> So, the bugs I mentioned in my previous post would receive higher priority. I
> only wonder whether this specific bug would be solved in karmic, because it
> needs another solution than the one that will be used for lucid. After all, is
> is already fixed.

If you report this issue as a support case, it will be triaged and
investigated by a support analyst. If appropriate, it might be
escalated internally to developers.

It is important to note, though, that we cannot commit to fixing a
specific bug within the scope of a support contract. The purpose of a
support contract is to get help in resolving problems. That help can
take the form of a bug fix where appropriate, or it can be something
else, such as a workaround. What we aim for is to ensure the customer's
business continuity.


> So, will taking a support contract guarantee bootable machines in the next 4
> months?

Yes. Canonical Support will provide a solution to your problem. It may
or may not take the form of a fix for bug #470776, but we will make sure
the Ubuntu systems under support contract remain reliable and perform
according to expectations.


If you have further question, or need clarification, on the scope of
Canonical Support, I suggest you contact someone at Canonical directly.
Public mailing list may not be the best place to ask.


Best regards,

--
Etienne Goyer
Technical Account Manager - Canonical Ltd
Ubuntu Certified Instructor - LPIC-3


--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam

On 07.01.2010 13:47, Alvin wrote:

> I don't care for booting under 10 seconds on a server, but I do care for
> consistent booting. Right now, there are so many things going wrong that I
> don't know where to begin reporting. Even error messages are wrong (504224),
> and without boot logging (328881) they are the only thing we got to know what
> is going wrong.

FWIW, we had a discussion about this problem at UDS. We also said 'we
don't care about 10 seconds boot' . I'm sure it will get fixed...

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam