Question to F39 who did a new install apart upgrade

[old sixpack13]

since F38 it happens to me that the dir for the journals is filled up with a lot of small journals (~5 MB) and something regarding time

Is this still the case with F39 *new* installs (explicit *NOT* upgrades, e.g. F38 => F39)

[old sixpack13]

well, grandpa sixpack

s/Question to F39/Question to F39 users/

[František Šumšal]

On 9/27/23 17:44, old sixpack13 wrote:
> since F38 it happens to me that the dir for the journals is filled up with a lot of small journals (~5 MB) and something regarding time

I don't know what is the exact journal message you're seeing, but [0] (and [1]) might be related.

[0] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/28250
[1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/29017

[old sixpack13]

> On 9/27/23 17:44, old sixpack13 wrote:
>
> I don't know what is the exact journal message you're seeing, but [0] (and [1])
> might be related.
>
> [0] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/28250
> [1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/29017

Exact !

remaining question: is it in new installed F39 too ?

[František Šumšal]

On 9/28/23 01:11, old sixpack13 wrote:
> > On 9/27/23 17:44, old sixpack13 wrote:
> >
> > I don't know what is the exact journal message you're seeing, but [0] (and [1])
> > might be related.
> >
> > [0] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/28250
> > [1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/29017
>
> Exact !
>
> remaining question: is it in new installed F39 too ?

As far as I know yes, the potential fixes from [1] are not in any released or stable systemd version.

[old sixpack13]

> On 9/28/23 01:11, old sixpack13 wrote:
>
> As far as I know yes, the potential fixes from [1] are not in any released or stable
> systemd version.

Okay, thanks for input/Clarification

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 09:28 +0200, František Šumšal wrote:
> On 9/28/23 01:11, old sixpack13 wrote:
> > > On 9/27/23 17:44, old sixpack13 wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't know what is the exact journal message you're seeing, but [0] (and [1])
> > > might be related.
> > >
> > > [0] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/28250
> > > [1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/29017
> >
> > Exact !
> >
> > remaining question: is it in new installed F39 too ?
>
> As far as I know yes, the potential fixes from [1] are not in any released or stable systemd version.

It looks like they are in 254.5, which is on its way to updates-testing
for F39 now:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3355cdb0a8

[old sixpack13]

> It looks like they are in 254.5, which is on its way to updates-testing
> for F39 now:

Thanks !

[old sixpack13]

> On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 09:28 +0200, František Šumšal wrote:
>
> It looks like they are in 254.5, which is on its way to updates-testing
> for F39 now:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3355cdb0a8

unfortunately, nit fixed with 254.5-2.fc39

still seeing:
- journal: Realtime clock jumped backwards relative to last journal entry, rotating
- Journal file uses a different sequence number ID, rotating

[stan]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 17:50:31 -0000
"old sixpack13"  wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 09:28 +0200, František Šumšal wrote:
> >
> > It looks like they are in 254.5, which is on its way to
> > updates-testing for F39 now:
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-3355cdb0a8
>
> unfortunately, nit fixed with 254.5-2.fc39
>
> still seeing:
> journal: Realtime clock jumped backwards relative to last journal
>
> entry, rotating
> Journal file uses a different sequence number ID, rotating

This is just a wild guess, but the tzdata package was recently dropped
as required by some packages.  Is it possible some fallout from this is
the source of your problem?  Do you have the tzdata package(s)
installed?

Another remote possibility is that your system isn't maintaining time
properly.  Could the little pancake CR2032 battery be dead?

[old sixpack13]

> On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 17:50:31 -0000
> "old sixpack13" <sixpack13(a)online.de&gt; wrote:
>
> This is just a wild guess, but the tzdata package was recently dropped
> as required by some packages.  Is it possible some fallout from this is
> the source of your problem?  Do you have the tzdata package(s)
> installed?

rpm -qa|grep tzdata
tzdata-2023c-2.fc39.noarch
tzdata-java-2023c-2.fc39.noarch

more needed ?
box was a new install of F38 with the updated ISO at 2023-07-28 and upgraded to F39 since beta is out
> Another remote possibility is that your system isn't maintaining time
> properly.  Could the little pancake CR2032 battery be dead?

the box is new build from: 2021-10-12
my experiences with CMOS Batteries are: exchange needed when elder > 3 years

[stan]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2023 17:03:12 -0000
"old sixpack13"  wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 17:50:31 -0000
> > "old sixpack13" <sixpack13(a)online.de&gt; wrote:
> >
> > This is just a wild guess, but the tzdata package was recently
> > dropped as required by some packages.  Is it possible some fallout
> > from this is the source of your problem?  Do you have the tzdata
> > package(s) installed?
>
> rpm -qa|grep tzdata
> tzdata-2023c-2.fc39.noarch
> tzdata-java-2023c-2.fc39.noarch
> more needed ?

No, that would do it.
> > Another remote possibility is that your system isn't maintaining
> > time properly.  Could the little pancake CR2032 battery be dead?
>
> the box is new build from: 2021-10-12
> my experiences with CMOS Batteries are: exchange needed when elder >
> 3 years

I'd give this a pass as well.  My thought was that the systemd messages
from boot for the journal, before chronyd was loaded, were off because
the time was different than the time that chronyd pulled from the web.

Given your data, I don't think either of these is your issue.  I'm out
of ideas.

[old sixpack13]

> On Mon, 02 Oct 2023 17:03:12 -0000

...
> Given your data, I don't think either of these is your issue.  I'm out
> of ideas.

anyway, thanks for support !