<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:01:06
!startmeeting fedora-server
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:01:08
Meeting started at 2024-10-02 17:01:06 UTC
<@meetbot:fedora.im>
17:01:08
The Meeting name is 'fedora-server'
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:01:18
!topic Welcome / roll call
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:01:34
let's wait a moment for everybody to show up.
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:04:59
Hello, people.
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:05:01
!hello
<@zodbot:fedora.im>
17:05:02
Emmanuel Seyman (eseyman) - he / him / his
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:05:20
Welcome Emmanuel!
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:05:40
Hello, Peter
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:05:46
I hope we won't be left alone.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:09:00
While we're waiting: In your opinion, is there a change in the release that we should specifically take care of? As far as I remember, you had created a list. But we haven't decided on anything, have we?
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:10:22
Oh, definately removal of ifcfg support
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:11:26
OK. The switch to NetworkManager was in F39, wasn't it? There was a migration tool.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:12:17
What can we possibly still do here?
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:12:30
I'm sure there's a lot of documentation telling you to edit ifcfg files
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:13:02
Yes, tons of that.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:13:56
So we shouldn't include anything in the release for this point? And specifically mention this in our documentation page?
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:14:24
!Hello
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:14:45
Sorry, I had a commitment right at our start time that made me a little late.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:15:09
And how should we try what happens if we use ifcfg files with dnf-upgrade?
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:15:31
mowest: Welcome. Better late than never :-)
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:16:12
dnf moves from python to c++ but that doesn't need to go into our docs or release notes I don't think.
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:16:12
Given that the removal was announced, I'm ok with dnf-upgrade failing hard
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:17:02
mowest: Yeahl, no need to mention it.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:17:42
Emmanuel Seyman: I would prefer, it the migration tool still would kick in.
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:18:45
I would love a pre-upgrade step that warns you "This is going to fail hard unless you do $MAGIC"
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:19:07
OK, that's OK, too.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:19:24
Do you have a chance to check, what happens?
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:20:29
Where did they announce the ifcfg change? I don't recall seeing anything, but I might have ignored it since I don't think I'm using it, and I honestly don't know what it is.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:21:20
mowest: Was in the F39 or F38 release notes and there was a long discussion
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:21:31
This is more a documentation issue than a code issue
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:21:56
actually, it's a third-party documentation issue
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:23:53
from a code/sysadmin POV, the replacement of Redis with Valkey seems the most important issue
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:24:30
OK, regarding ifcfg: documentation issue. We can contribute an entry to the release notes and to our documentation home page. That's all that's needed.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:25:21
Regarding Redis/Valkey, I vaguely remember the discussion. What can we do?
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:26:05
we can test the upgrade goes well but that requires having a use for Redis which I do not have
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:26:49
I. too, are not aware it I use Redis anywhere. I don't think so.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:27:40
A note in the release notes has to make it, I think.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:28:06
I think, we should start with our Agenda.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:28:14
!topic Agenda
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:28:24
!info Follow-up actions & announcements
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:28:31
!info Testing Release 41
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:28:39
!info LVM2 default configuration change
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:28:47
!info Server user poll
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:28:55
info Open Floor
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:29:03
Let's immediately start.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:29:11
!info Follow-up actions & announcements
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:29:37
Regarding open actions nothing changed.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:29:44
Let's skip this.
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:30:16
Ok
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:30:24
!topic 2. Testing Release 41
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:30:36
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/144
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:30:45
Discussion on mailing lisz
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:30:52
!link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/ODISTPROLKECRXX73LA5VUVZJFIFEHRR/
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:31:00
Well, the discussion so far is still a bit sparse.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:31:00
Nevertheless, we have to determine how to proceed with our test efforts.
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:32:12
Finally got time to install F41 Beta on both a laptop and a VM
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:32:32
I plan to test PgSQL, MariaDB and Podman
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:32:48
and this will help me write a test-suite for all 3
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:33:34
I have tried the installation procedures and virtualization as well as nspawn containers.
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:33:40
What is needed to get our preferred tests into the automation system or does Adam have them in there already?
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:33:51
So it is good, if you test podman and postges
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:34:04
I had a successful install of F41 Beta on a system.
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:34:43
I haven't tested anything running on top of it though.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:34:57
mowest: Everything that can automatically be test ist already automatic. We have to expand it to additional services. That's a discussion of it's own.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:35:35
I installed on x86_64 only, so far. Did someone try SBCs?
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:36:47
I plan to
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:37:01
OK, thanks
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:37:14
If I look at the information here, we are fulfilling our current program with it.
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:37:38
No, because I only have a RPi3 which I don't think works with Fedora, isn't it only RPi4 that works currently with Fedora?
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:38:42
RPi4 is the best target but I would have thought RPi3 would work
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:39:05
Emmanuel Seyman: Really? Maybe I will have to try that.
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:39:27
I have access to a RPi3 and RPi3+
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:40:12
We should continue to have a discussion on the mailing list. And now focus on our user poll.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:40:12
But the fundamental discussion that we have been having for some time remains. See, for example, my summary on the mailing list.
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:40:27
indeed
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:40:31
Any objection to prodees now?
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:40:41
No
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:40:45
!topic 3. LVM2 default configuration change
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:40:52
!link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247872
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:41:31
Just informational. Please, have a look at the bug report and let's discuss it on Mailing list or - better - in the bug report.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:41:42
!topic 4. Server user poll
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:41:54
!link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/14
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:42:03
This is our main topic today.
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:42:20
I have not moved forward my "action" of getting permissions to use the Fedora LimeSurvey software yet. Still a work in progress. So I don't have a draft i n LimeSurvey to share yet.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:43:10
Well, should we poke Justin? Or what can we do?
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:44:13
I need to make an issue in the Gitlab spot, and I'm assuming it will get noticed there and acted upon. I just didn't have a chance to do so after Matt Miller shared the link with me in the Community Operations channel.
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:45:06
After Matt replied, I was into my busy weekend.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:45:15
OK. So we have to poke the various Fedora channels.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:45:55
Do we have someone outside server WG to ask for feedback contentwise?
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:46:37
Not that I know of, would you like a draft shared in one of the other channels for comment?
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:47:39
The current hackmd doc is pretty close I think to what the LimeSurvey form will be.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:48:11
I think it would be good if someone who recently conducted a poll took a look at it, don't you?
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:48:42
Not that we're all blind to our own shortcomings and can't see anything but our own little world.
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:49:08
Aoife Moloney: She conducted the AI poll. She might have some insights for us on our poll for Fedora Server.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:49:26
Good idea!
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:49:33
Will you contact her?
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:50:37
I kind of did, by tagging her in this room. Here is the link to the hackmd doc https://hackmd.io/@pboy/ByguCouphC
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:51:04
OK, so all we can do in the moment is to poke around.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:51:20
Let proceed in the aganda.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:51:41
!topic 5. Open Floor
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:52:20
I had a brief discussion with sgallgher. I'm in the process of drawing up a plan for how we should proceed with the expansion of the automatic tests.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:52:36
I think I'll come up with a plan next week.
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:53:48
FTR, I will propose we use btrfs as our default fs for F42 and onwards
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:54:15
That's a critical discussion :)
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:54:17
I'm in favor of this.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:54:36
There are a lot of arguments not to use it for Server.
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:54:43
I think it would be nice to get us on the same page with the rest of the editions and spins.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:54:58
But I might not be up to date.
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:55:08
aligning with other editions is the main reason
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:55:28
CoreOS doesn't use BTRFS either, as far as I know.
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:55:34
not having two layers of tech on top of each other is the other one
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:56:16
I thought they have a weird install process that chooses the filesystem after install because of how that edition works in the cloud.
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:56:28
CoreOS doesn't have a default, from what I understand
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:57:19
In the discussion about a year ago Paul was strict against BTRFS on server.
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:57:21
anyway, I will make a proposal around F41's release on what to do with F42+
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:57:30
Paul?
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:58:00
YEah, the redhat engineer who is driveing CoreOS forward.
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:58:26
I could have sworn this was an option in Anaconda if you were installing Server, it's just not the default
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:58:59
At Flock, the CentOS crew mentioned that it would be nice if Fedora Server pushed the envelop and tried some things first before it becomes standard for CentOS and RHEL.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:59:14
Yes, I think, it is an option. And we should have look at RHEL!
<@mowest:fedora.im>
17:59:26
Btrfs was something that was mentioned as Fedora Server could carry out the "First" in Fedora.
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
17:59:32
at this point, I think we're 3/4 years behind the curve
<@pboy:fedora.im>
17:59:44
I think not so!
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:00:17
RHEL still doesn't provide a BTRFS option, as far as I know. And that for a reason.
<@cmurf:fedora.im>
18:01:39
RHEL won't do it before either CentOS and Fedora do it - per usual. So Fedora needs to push if it wants something to happen. And there is work on Btrfs happening in CentOS (hyperscale is one).
<@mowest:fedora.im>
18:01:39
Does anyone know the "F's" of Fedora? I heard them once at Flock, and I know one of them is "First" they are like the 4 guiding principals of the community.
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
18:02:24
Freedom, Friends, Features & First
<@mowest:fedora.im>
18:02:24
If CentOS is working on it, then it makes sense for Fedora to give it a go.
<@mowest:fedora.im>
18:02:39
Thanks Emmanuel Seyman
<@cmurf:fedora.im>
18:02:48
The main issue to consider is feature losses, to what degree that's important: e.g. a stable raid5 and raid6 implementation, and whether you'd recommend Btrfs on md raid5 or raid6. But we quickly get into the weeds on status 🙂 Might be best to set up a series of discussions or something.
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
18:03:09
There will be discussion(s)
<@eseyman:fedora.im>
18:03:37
and XFS will stay available as an option if I have my say in the matter
<@cmurf:fedora.im>
18:03:39
Like in terms of performance and reliability, desktops editions and spins, and Cloud edition - it's going very well.
<@cmurf:fedora.im>
18:03:58
Like in terms of performance and reliability, desktops editions and spins, and Cloud edition - Btrfs is going very well.
<@cmurf:fedora.im>
18:04:26
coreOS folks can make their own decisions, their an edition too - but historically they're inclined to follow Server edition
<@mowest:fedora.im>
18:04:44
I would agree that the move to Btrfs as default, would not remove the option of XFS. Our docs could even encourage the use of XFS if someone plans on RAID5 or 6 but I haven't checked recently the state of Btrfs and RAID5 and 6.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:05:51
Well, that's really a discussion. Anyone who wants can already use BTRS. That's not an issue.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:06:01
But we are running out of time.
<@mowest:fedora.im>
18:06:11
I haven't lost a file with Btrfs as the default on my systems for over 3 years now.
<@mowest:fedora.im>
18:06:58
Thanks Peter Boy for leading a good meeting again this week.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:07:07
And another thing, before we start another basic actions we should first complete our various open tasks!!
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:07:43
I would love for us to use btrfs by default :)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:08:02
we have a btrfs sig too for people to engage with upstream folks :)
<@mowest:fedora.im>
18:08:25
I knew you Conan Kudo would support btrfs by default on Fedora Server :-)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:08:30
:D
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:08:50
I've been using btrfs for my fedora server systems for well over 6 years :)
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:09:21
it's been solid and a lifesaver, especially for automating backups of data with reasonable fidelity and reliability
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
18:09:38
and now that cockpit supports btrfs, I don't see a reason we shouldn't do it :)
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:09:57
Before we start looking at BTRFS, we should first be able to repair our distribution medium. We've been working on that for two years. And don't put the cart before the horse!
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:10:28
But let's close for now!
<@mowest:fedora.im>
18:10:38
Bye everyone.
<@pboy:fedora.im>
18:10:44
!endmeeting