On 19/12/17 03:36, stan wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 16:49:47 +1030
Stephen Davies wrote:
I upgraded from F25 to F26 yesterday and ever since have been seeing
the system frequently become totally unresponsive.
[snip]
The only clue that I have seen is that top often shows very high wait
I/O l
I've filed an RFE:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1527768
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 12/19/2017 04:46 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
That's the big picture. And looks like it's completely impossible to
do that, in stock Fedora.
Right now, yes. And that's completely and entirely down to
NetworkManager bringing interfaces up in an event-driven fashion, when
link is detected.
Gordon Messmer writes:
Thanks, Sam, that looks like very useful information. The logs you posted
indicate that one interface, eno1, had no link when "ip addr show" ran,
after NetworkManager reported itself online. This seems consistent with nm-
online's man page which indicates that startu
Thanks, Sam, that looks like very useful information. The logs you
posted indicate that one interface, eno1, had no link when "ip addr
show" ran, after NetworkManager reported itself online. This seems
consistent with nm-online's man page which indicates that startup is
complete when all conn
Louis Lagendijk writes:
> Running diff on them shows pretty much the only differences you
> would
> expect: NAME, UUID, HWADDR, IPADDR*, PREFIX*, GATEWAY, and DNS* are
> different. In terms of everything else, the config is the samen
what happens if you change this to yes? Does nm-online then w
Justin Moore writes:
I interpret "-s" to mean "all interfaces are active but do not necessarily
have an address or a default route". This means that NM will return success
What does it mean for an interface that has a static IP address explicitly
specified in its ifcfg file to be "active",
Joe Zeff writes:
On 12/19/2017 11:27 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
"Wait for NetworkManager startup to complete, rather than waiting for
network connectivity specifically. Startup is considered complete once
NetworkManager has activated (or attempted to activate) every auto-activate
connect
On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 14:14 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Louis Lagendijk writes:
>
> > One question that has been bugging me for some time now: I wonder
> > if
> > nm-online checks for IP-addressing only when the "require ipv4
> > addressing for this connection to complete" option nm-connectio
Sam,
Here's my understanding of the situation:
* a network interface can either be active/started -- i.e., is in the "up"
state, without necessarily having a network address -- or connected --
i.e., having an address; and
* a system can have multiple network interfaces.
I interpret "-s" to mean
On 12/19/2017 11:27 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
"Wait for NetworkManager startup to complete, rather than waiting for
network connectivity specifically. Startup is considered complete once
NetworkManager has activated (or attempted to activate) every
auto-activate connection which is available
Dr J Austin writes:
I have read the nm-online man page about 10 times and I am still not
clear what it is telling me.
The way I parse it, without -s it waits until at least one network
connection is present. With the option, it should wait until all connections
are up. The man page starts
Louis Lagendijk writes:
One question that has been bugging me for some time now: I wonder if
nm-online checks for IP-addressing only when the "require ipv4
addressing for this connection to complete" option nm-connection-
editor (which I guess results in IPV4_FAILURE_FATAL=yes being set in
the
On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 07:16 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Gordon Messmer writes:
>
> > On 12/18/2017 05:52 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> > > Time IP addresses
> > > ==
> > > 08:35:34
> > > 08:35:35 192.168.0.1
> > >
> > > At 08:35:34 the server had no IP addresses
> >
>
On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 07:16 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Gordon Messmer writes:
>
> > On 12/18/2017 05:52 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> > > Time IP addresses
> > > ==
> > > 08:35:34
> > > 08:35:35 192.168.0.1
> > >
> > > At 08:35:34 the server had no IP addresses
> >
>
On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 19:33:04 -0500, Bill Shirley wrote:
> And you're just going to let your geese remain unordered?!
>
> (Haven't had my coffee yet or my meds :-) )
Sorry to be so late with a (bad) answer; I've asked on a list
with a couple British subscribers who know about punts and p
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 20:46:36 +, Beartooth wrote:
[]
> The machine is actually .x86_64, as I have now discovered. I
> tried adding --allowerasing and --allowerasing --best, but with no
> success.
>
> Do I dare do something like "dnf remove compiz"?? (Or perhaps
> "dnf re
On 19 Dec 2017 07:49, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:12:55 -0800 Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 12/17/2017 01:17 PM, francis.montag...@inria.fr wrote:
>>Dec 17 21:32:59 X systemd[1]: Mounting /data2...
>>Dec 17 21:33:19 X mount[996]: mount to NFS server 'Y' failed:
Resource temporarily unavai
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 07:25:46 -0500 Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:16:51 +0800
>> FWIW, are you aware that you shouldn't make changes to
>> /usr/lib/systemd/system/* files? These can be overwritten up
>> updates.
Yes yes, but we are debugging.
>> If you want to make changes you sho
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:16:51 +0800
Ed Greshko wrote:
> FWIW, are you aware that you shouldn't make changes to
> /usr/lib/systemd/system/*
> files? These can be overwritten up updates. If you want to make changes you
> should
> created a file with the same name in /etc/systemd/system.
And wh
On 12/19/17 19:17, Dr J Austin wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 19:24 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>> Gordon Messmer writes:
>>
>>> On 12/18/2017 05:52 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Time IP addresses
==
08:35:34
08:35:35 192.168.0.1
At 08:35:34 the
Gordon Messmer writes:
On 12/18/2017 05:52 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Time IP addresses
==
08:35:34
08:35:35 192.168.0.1
At 08:35:34 the server had no IP addresses
Well, it probably had 127.0.0.1, which brings into question what the
complete state of the network w
On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 19:24 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Gordon Messmer writes:
>
> > On 12/18/2017 05:52 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> > > Time IP addresses
> > > ==
> > > 08:35:34
> > > 08:35:35 192.168.0.1
> > >
> > > At 08:35:34 the server had no IP addresses
> >
>
23 matches
Mail list logo
