I just installed F34 Server build 20210416. (Fedora-Server-dvd-x86_64-34-20210416.n.0) and tried cockpit.
Under 'Devices‘ there are no devices listed and the menu button in this section only shows „create RAID device“.
Usually there are the volume groups listed (among others) and I can create a new LV.
Is there a new way to that in F34? Do I miss something? Or is something wrong?
Best Peter
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 11:33 AM Peter Boy pboy@uni-bremen.de wrote:
I just installed F34 Server build 20210416. (Fedora-Server-dvd-x86_64-34-20210416.n.0) and tried cockpit.
Under 'Devices‘ there are no devices listed and the menu button in this section only shows „create RAID device“.
If I click on Storage (on the left side UI), on the right side UI under Devices I also have "No devices". Fedora 33, but Btrfs only. I guess this "Devices" section means virtual block devices, in contrast to physical block devices.
Usually there are the volume groups listed (among others) and I can create a new LV.
I'd think so. Is cockpit-storaged installed?
Hello Peter,
Peter Boy [2021-04-17 19:33 +0200]:
I just installed F34 Server build 20210416. (Fedora-Server-dvd-x86_64-34-20210416.n.0) and tried cockpit. Under 'Devices‘ there are no devices listed and the menu button in this section only shows „create RAID device“. Usually there are the volume groups listed (among others) and I can create a new LV.
Do you have udisks2-lvm package installed? It's a recommends of cockpit-storaged.
Martin
Hello Martin,
it was not installed. After installation it works again.
I suppose it is a bug in cockpit-storage package or maybe in Server Edition spin. In any case, this should work out of the box.
Do you know, is there a bugzilla entry or is it already part of the ongoing fine tuning of the F34 release?
Thanks Peter
Am 18.04.2021 um 10:24 schrieb Martin Pitt mpitt@redhat.com:
Hello Peter,
Peter Boy [2021-04-17 19:33 +0200]:
I just installed F34 Server build 20210416. (Fedora-Server-dvd-x86_64-34-20210416.n.0) and tried cockpit. Under 'Devices‘ there are no devices listed and the menu button in this section only shows „create RAID device“. Usually there are the volume groups listed (among others) and I can create a new LV.
Do you have udisks2-lvm package installed? It's a recommends of cockpit-storaged.
Martin _______________________________________________ server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Peter Boy [2021-04-18 11:37 +0200]:
it was not installed. After installation it works again.
I suppose it is a bug in cockpit-storage package or maybe in Server Edition spin. In any case, this should work out of the box.
cockpit-storaged has Recommends: udisks2-lvm, which is exactly right -- it does work without it, but with less features. If you or server edition disabled Recommends, that may be a bug somewhere else, of course.
Thanks,
Martin
Recommends are not included on the Server ISO but would be for the network install.
The correct behavior here would be to add udisks2-lvm to the Server Edition comps.xml definition to ensure it is included on the ISO.
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 9:38 AM Martin Pitt mpitt@redhat.com wrote:
Peter Boy [2021-04-18 11:37 +0200]:
it was not installed. After installation it works again.
I suppose it is a bug in cockpit-storage package or maybe in Server
Edition spin. In any case, this should work out of the box.
cockpit-storaged has Recommends: udisks2-lvm, which is exactly right -- it does work without it, but with less features. If you or server edition disabled Recommends, that may be a bug somewhere else, of course.
Thanks,
Martin _______________________________________________ server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Am 18.04.2021 um 20:54 schrieb Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com:
Recommends are not included on the Server ISO but would be for the network install.
Wondering, why recommends are included in network install but not in local install. What is the rationale ?
The correct behavior here would be to add udisks2-lvm to the Server Edition comps.xml definition to ensure it is included on the ISO.
What do we have to do to have it included?
Peter
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 9:38 AM Martin Pitt mpitt@redhat.com wrote: Peter Boy [2021-04-18 11:37 +0200]:
it was not installed. After installation it works again.
I suppose it is a bug in cockpit-storage package or maybe in Server Edition spin. In any case, this should work out of the box.
cockpit-storaged has Recommends: udisks2-lvm, which is exactly right -- it does work without it, but with less features. If you or server edition disabled Recommends, that may be a bug somewhere else, of course.
Thanks,
Martin
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 4:24 AM Peter Boy pboy@uni-bremen.de wrote:
Am 18.04.2021 um 20:54 schrieb Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com:
Recommends are not included on the Server ISO but would be for the
network install.
Wondering, why recommends are included in network install but not in local install. What is the rationale ?
Space on disk. We only have so many bytes available on a DVD. Recommends are literally things the system can do without. In this case, we don’t *want* Server to do without it, so we should pull it in.
The correct behavior here would be to add udisks2-lvm to the Server
Edition comps.xml definition to ensure it is included on the ISO.
What do we have to do to have it included?
Peter
I’ll send a merge request for https://pagure.io/fedora-comps later this morning.
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 9:38 AM Martin Pitt mpitt@redhat.com wrote: Peter Boy [2021-04-18 11:37 +0200]:
it was not installed. After installation it works again.
I suppose it is a bug in cockpit-storage package or maybe in Server
Edition spin. In any case, this should work out of the box.
cockpit-storaged has Recommends: udisks2-lvm, which is exactly right --
it does
work without it, but with less features. If you or server edition
disabled
Recommends, that may be a bug somewhere else, of course.
Thanks,
Martin
server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 6:35 AM Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 4:24 AM Peter Boy pboy@uni-bremen.de wrote:
Am 18.04.2021 um 20:54 schrieb Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com:
Recommends are not included on the Server ISO but would be for the network install.
Wondering, why recommends are included in network install but not in local install. What is the rationale ?
Space on disk. We only have so many bytes available on a DVD. Recommends are literally things the system can do without. In this case, we don’t *want* Server to do without it, so we should pull it in.
The correct behavior here would be to add udisks2-lvm to the Server Edition comps.xml definition to ensure it is included on the ISO.
What do we have to do to have it included?
Peter
I’ll send a merge request for https://pagure.io/fedora-comps later this morning.
Actually, Peter: Can you please file a BZ about this and submit it for consideration as a Freeze Exception? (You can use https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug for this)
Am 19.04.2021 um 15:01 schrieb Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com:
I’ll send a merge request for https://pagure.io/fedora-comps later this morning.
Actually, Peter: Can you please file a BZ about this and submit it for consideration as a Freeze Exception? (You can use https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug for this)
Did my best, bug 1951062 proposed as freeze exception. I hope I did the right way.
Peter
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 10:32 AM Peter Boy pboy@uni-bremen.de wrote:
Am 19.04.2021 um 15:01 schrieb Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com:
I’ll send a merge request for https://pagure.io/fedora-comps later this morning.
Actually, Peter: Can you please file a BZ about this and submit it for consideration as a Freeze Exception? (You can use https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug for this)
Did my best, bug 1951062 proposed as freeze exception. I hope I did the right way.
Thanks, Peter.
I'm CCing Martin on this because it occurs to me that we really should have some more formal blocker criteria for Cockpit functionality in the Server Edition. Currently, we only require that it is installed and accessible on a default installation and that it can join FreeIPA/Active Directory domains. However, Cockpit can do MUCH more than that, and we should probably figure out what is the right minimum set of functionality that Server Edition must provide.
I'll throw a couple ideas out to start things off:
== Storage == * It must be possible to enumerate all physically-attached drives. * It must be possible to partition, format and mount physically attached drives. * It must be possible to enumerate all network-attached drives. * It must be possible to connect to a remote iSCSI target. * It must be possible to connect to a remote NFS mount point. * It must be possible to view the currently-active mount points on the system.
== Network == * It must be possible to configure the network to use automatic or static IP addressing. * It must be possible to enable or disable the firewall. * It must be possible to allow or revoke access to individual ports through the firewall. * It must be possible to add custom network routes for a device.
== Services == * It must be possible to start, stop and restart system services. * It must be possible to configure whether a system service starts automatically at boot. * It must be possible to mask system services so that they cannot be started.
== Software Updates == * It must be possible to install available software updates on a live system. * It must be possible to choose to install security updates only.
== SELinux == * It must be possible to configure SELinux in enforcing or permissive mode.
Hello Stephen, all,
Stephen Gallagher [2021-04-19 12:44 -0400]:
I'm CCing Martin on this because it occurs to me that we really should have some more formal blocker criteria for Cockpit functionality in the Server Edition.
Thanks for reviewing that! I compared that list against the other Recommends: that we have.
== Storage ==
cockpit-storaged is by itself only a recommends of cockpit, but explicitly mentioned in comps. ✔
- It must be possible to enumerate all physically-attached drives.
- It must be possible to partition, format and mount physically attached drives.
- It must be possible to enumerate all network-attached drives.
✔
- It must be possible to connect to a remote iSCSI target.
⚠ That would be udisks2-iscsi, which is only a Recommends and not in comps.
- It must be possible to connect to a remote NFS mount point.
- It must be possible to view the currently-active mount points on the system.
✔
== Network ==
- It must be possible to configure the network to use automatic or
static IP addressing.
- It must be possible to enable or disable the firewall.
- It must be possible to allow or revoke access to individual ports
through the firewall.
- It must be possible to add custom network routes for a device.
✔
The only thing I spotted is that NetworkManager-team is only a Recommends. Not sure how important that is.
== Services ==
- It must be possible to start, stop and restart system services.
- It must be possible to configure whether a system service starts
automatically at boot.
- It must be possible to mask system services so that they cannot be started.
✔
== Software Updates ==
Again, cockpit-packagekit is only a Recommends of cockpit, but explicitly in comps. ✔
- It must be possible to install available software updates on a live system.
- It must be possible to choose to install security updates only.
⚠ However.. The new "tracer" feature is only a Recommends, so it may be prudent to add python3-tracer to comps as well to move from a static "reboot recommended" to an "offer service restarting if that is sufficient".
== SELinux ==
- It must be possible to configure SELinux in enforcing or permissive mode.
✔
Thanks,
Pitti
I just tested it server dvd install with rc 1.1
„device list“ doesn’t work so inclusion of udisks2-iscsi did not happen.
Should we just wait vor rc 1.2 because the freeze exception was too late for this rc or do we have to do something?
Peter
Am 20.04.2021 um 14:58 schrieb Martin Pitt mpitt@redhat.com:
Hello Stephen, all,
Stephen Gallagher [2021-04-19 12:44 -0400]:
I'm CCing Martin on this because it occurs to me that we really should have some more formal blocker criteria for Cockpit functionality in the Server Edition.
Thanks for reviewing that! I compared that list against the other Recommends: that we have.
== Storage ==
cockpit-storaged is by itself only a recommends of cockpit, but explicitly mentioned in comps. ✔
- It must be possible to enumerate all physically-attached drives.
- It must be possible to partition, format and mount physically attached drives.
- It must be possible to enumerate all network-attached drives.
✔
- It must be possible to connect to a remote iSCSI target.
⚠ That would be udisks2-iscsi, which is only a Recommends and not in comps.
- It must be possible to connect to a remote NFS mount point.
- It must be possible to view the currently-active mount points on the system.
✔
== Network ==
- It must be possible to configure the network to use automatic or
static IP addressing.
- It must be possible to enable or disable the firewall.
- It must be possible to allow or revoke access to individual ports
through the firewall.
- It must be possible to add custom network routes for a device.
✔
The only thing I spotted is that NetworkManager-team is only a Recommends. Not sure how important that is.
== Services ==
- It must be possible to start, stop and restart system services.
- It must be possible to configure whether a system service starts
automatically at boot.
- It must be possible to mask system services so that they cannot be started.
✔
== Software Updates ==
Again, cockpit-packagekit is only a Recommends of cockpit, but explicitly in comps. ✔
- It must be possible to install available software updates on a live system.
- It must be possible to choose to install security updates only.
⚠ However.. The new "tracer" feature is only a Recommends, so it may be prudent to add python3-tracer to comps as well to move from a static "reboot recommended" to an "offer service restarting if that is sufficient".
== SELinux ==
- It must be possible to configure SELinux in enforcing or permissive mode.
✔
Thanks,
Pitti _______________________________________________ server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 16:54 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
I just tested it server dvd install with rc 1.1
„device list“ doesn’t work so inclusion of udisks2-iscsi did not happen.
Should we just wait vor rc 1.2 because the freeze exception was too late for this rc or do we have to do something?
No FE was proposed or approved for iSCSI, AFAICS. The FE that was proposed and accepted:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951062
refers only to udisks2-lvm , and that's what the PR that was merged added:
https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/647#
if udisks2-iscsi is wanted too, it should've been discussed in the FE and added to the PR.
We're about to spin RC2, like, right now. If someone thinks this a big problem and wants to fix it in the next fifteen minutes we can hold off for a bit.
Am 23.04.2021 um 02:35 schrieb Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org:
On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 16:54 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
I just tested it server dvd install with rc 1.1
„device list“ doesn’t work so inclusion of udisks2-iscsi did not happen.
Should we just wait vor rc 1.2 because the freeze exception was too late for this rc or do we have to do something?
No FE was proposed or approved for iSCSI, AFAICS. The FE that was proposed and accepted:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951062
refers only to udisks2-lvm , and that's what the PR that was merged added:
https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/647# if udisks2-iscsi is wanted too, it should've been discussed in the FE and added to the PR.
Sorry, I had slipped in the lines of my notes.
But it’s even worse.
The FE was about Include udisks2-lvm
The correct module name is udisks2-lvm2 (according to dnf search udisks)
In any case, udisks2-lvm2 was not included in rc1, hopefully it is in rc2?
And we have the same issue with additional modules, most important is
udisks2-iscsi.x86_64 : Module for iSCSI
which is an install option and a wider used storage strategy in the server world.
Additional modules are:
udisks2-zram.x86_64 : Module for ZRAM udisks2-lsm.x86_64 : Module for LSM udisks2-bcache.x86_64 : Module for Bcache
I cannot judge their relevance. Maybe no admin is interested in graphical support of the swap area (zram).
Server is also missing udisks2-btrfs.x86_64 : Module for BTRFS
BTRFS is currently not a recommended file system, so we could omit that.
We're about to spin RC2, like, right now. If someone thinks this a big problem and wants to fix it in the next fifteen minutes we can hold off for a bit.
Sorry, my time zone is 6 hours ahead. I am right now starting my day.
Is there a chance for rc3 ?
On Fri, 2021-04-23 at 07:09 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
Am 23.04.2021 um 02:35 schrieb Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org:
On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 16:54 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
I just tested it server dvd install with rc 1.1
„device list“ doesn’t work so inclusion of udisks2-iscsi did not happen.
Should we just wait vor rc 1.2 because the freeze exception was too late for this rc or do we have to do something?
No FE was proposed or approved for iSCSI, AFAICS. The FE that was proposed and accepted:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951062
refers only to udisks2-lvm , and that's what the PR that was merged added:
https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/pull-request/647# if udisks2-iscsi is wanted too, it should've been discussed in the FE and added to the PR.
Sorry, I had slipped in the lines of my notes.
But it’s even worse.
The FE was about Include udisks2-lvm
The correct module name is udisks2-lvm2 (according to dnf search udisks)
In any case, udisks2-lvm2 was not included in rc1, hopefully it is in rc2?
And we have the same issue with additional modules, most important is
udisks2-iscsi.x86_64 : Module for iSCSI
which is an install option and a wider used storage strategy in the server world.
Additional modules are:
udisks2-zram.x86_64 : Module for ZRAM udisks2-lsm.x86_64 : Module for LSM udisks2-bcache.x86_64 : Module for Bcache
I cannot judge their relevance. Maybe no admin is interested in graphical support of the swap area (zram).
Server is also missing udisks2-btrfs.x86_64 : Module for BTRFS
BTRFS is currently not a recommended file system, so we could omit that.
We're about to spin RC2, like, right now. If someone thinks this a big problem and wants to fix it in the next fifteen minutes we can hold off for a bit.
Sorry, my time zone is 6 hours ahead. I am right now starting my day.
Is there a chance for rc3 ?
We didn't actually do rc2 yet as shenanigans ensued, so I'll tried and get this fixed.
cockpit-storaged only Recommends udisks2-lvm2 and udisks2-iscsi , so I'll just do those.
Am 23.04.2021 um 08:47 schrieb Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org:
On Fri, 2021-04-23 at 07:09 +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
… …
We're about to spin RC2, like, right now. If someone thinks this a big problem and wants to fix it in the next fifteen minutes we can hold off for a bit.
Sorry, my time zone is 6 hours ahead. I am right now starting my day.
Is there a chance for rc3 ?
We didn't actually do rc2 yet as shenanigans ensued, so I'll tried and get this fixed.
cockpit-storaged only Recommends udisks2-lvm2 and udisks2-iscsi , so I'll just do those.
That’s perfect. Thank you a lot. And sorry for the extra trouble.
Peter
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:09 PM Peter Boy pboy@uni-bremen.de wrote:
Additional modules are:
udisks2-zram.x86_64 : Module for ZRAM udisks2-lsm.x86_64 : Module for LSM udisks2-bcache.x86_64 : Module for Bcache
I cannot judge their relevance. Maybe no admin is interested in graphical support of the swap area (zram).
I don't think any of these have UI in Cockpit anyway.
Server is also missing udisks2-btrfs.x86_64 : Module for BTRFS
BTRFS is currently not a recommended file system, so we could omit that.
It's not installed on Workstation by default either even though all desktops default to using Btrfs. I'm pretty sure the udisks modules don't do anything on their own, something needs to leverage their functionality, e.g. GNOME Disk Utility, or in this case Cockpit.
Also, it's accurate to say Btrfs isn't the default on Fedora Server, rather than saying it's not recommended.
Am 23.04.2021 um 23:49 schrieb Chris Murphy lists@colorremedies.com:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:09 PM Peter Boy pboy@uni-bremen.de wrote:
Server is also missing udisks2-btrfs.x86_64 : Module for BTRFS
BTRFS is currently not a recommended file system, so we could omit that.
It's not installed on Workstation by default either even though all desktops default to using Btrfs. I'm pretty sure the udisks modules don't do anything on their own, something needs to leverage their functionality, e.g. GNOME Disk Utility, or in this case Cockpit.
I didn’t check if I can work if BTRFS filesystem or generate one with Cockpit without that module. I’ll do that later.
Also, it's accurate to say Btrfs isn't the default on Fedora Server, rather than saying it's not recommended.
You are perfectly right. It’s the more accurate wording.
Peter
-- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ server mailing list -- server@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to server-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:20 PM Peter Boy pboy@uni-bremen.de wrote:
Am 23.04.2021 um 23:49 schrieb Chris Murphy lists@colorremedies.com:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:09 PM Peter Boy pboy@uni-bremen.de wrote:
Server is also missing udisks2-btrfs.x86_64 : Module for BTRFS
BTRFS is currently not a recommended file system, so we could omit that.
It's not installed on Workstation by default either even though all desktops default to using Btrfs. I'm pretty sure the udisks modules don't do anything on their own, something needs to leverage their functionality, e.g. GNOME Disk Utility, or in this case Cockpit.
I didn’t check if I can work if BTRFS filesystem or generate one with Cockpit without that module. I’ll do that later.
Doesn't matter whether udisks2-btrfs is present or not, it's not possible to create a Btrfs file system with Cockpit. Near as I can tell anyway. I'm pretty sure this is a regression, but I'd have to go back a ways since the last time I tested creating file systems in Cockpit.
The options are : XFS (recommended), ext4, VFAT, NTFS, and No filesystem. This list isn't based on what mkfs are available. I've got: mkfs.btrfs mkfs.erofs mkfs.ext2 mkfs.ext4 mkfs.fat mkfs.msdos mkfs.udf mkfs.xfs mkfs.cramfs mkfs.exfat mkfs.ext3 mkfs.f2fs mkfs.minix mkfs.ntfs mkfs.vfat
Also, it's accurate to say Btrfs isn't the default on Fedora Server, rather than saying it's not recommended.
You are perfectly right. It’s the more accurate wording.
I've pretty much only ever used Btrfs for Server edition installations since the beginning of Server edition :D So I can recommend it, but I understand that so far taking advantage of Btrfs features isn't a priority for Cockpit development. They've expressed interest in accepting features for it though.
Hello all,
Chris Murphy [2021-04-23 15:49 -0600]:
udisks2-zram.x86_64 : Module for ZRAM udisks2-lsm.x86_64 : Module for LSM udisks2-bcache.x86_64 : Module for Bcache [...] Server is also missing udisks2-btrfs.x86_64 : Module for BTRFS
I cannot judge their relevance. Maybe no admin is interested in graphical support of the swap area (zram).
I don't think any of these have UI in Cockpit anyway.
Right, only iscsi and lvm2 are used if available. Thanks for adding these two!
Martin
server@lists.fedoraproject.org