Le Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 03:48:23PM +0100, Marcin Kulisz a écrit :
>
> do you think that there is still need for mirror on AWS once we have
> CloudFront
> CDN which is working quite nicely from within AWS?
Hi Marcin,
I think that http(s)://cloudfront.debian.net/ is exactly what we need.
And I a
Hi everyone, I work with AWS as a Linux Ecosystem Solutions Architect. Please
let me know how I can assist with any goals or infrastructure requirements.
> On Jul 20, 2016, at 11:15, Marcin Kulisz wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I skimmed over cloud.d.o bug reports and it looks like some of them could
Le Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:09:55PM -0300, Tiago Ilieve a écrit :
>
> > - backports use cloudfront.debian.net. It would be great to work with
> > DSA to make cloudfront.debian.net official (part of deb.debian.org).
> > In the meantime, I would be more comfortable with using deb.debian.org.
>
>
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
net.ipv4.ip_local_port_range = 10240 65535
This one bit me: because AWS network ACLs are stateless, I had to add
inbound ALLOW rules for return packets from outbound traffic. I did so
with the official Wheezy images by specifying ports 32768-6100
Hi Charles,
do you think that there is still need for mirror on AWS once we have CloudFront
CDN which is working quite nicely from within AWS?
I don't think we can gain much more speed wise and as to lowering transfer
costs for our users I don't think that it'll change much in this case either as
Lucas,
On 20 July 2016 at 03:59, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> However, I think that, unless justified, we should strive to make Debian
> images for cloud environments as similar as possible as what one
> would get from a standard debian installation, to provide a consistent
> behaviour to users over a
On 20/07/16 at 22:29 +0800, James Bromberger wrote:
> Hi Lucas (and list),
>
> Most of this was from this work:
>
> http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2015-03-03/performance-tuning-linux-instances-on-ec2.html
>
>
> This was to ensure that the Debian images were as optimal as possible
> within the
Hi all,
I skimmed over cloud.d.o bug reports and it looks like some of them could be
solved but may create additional costs on our (Debian) AWS account. Therefore I
have some questions I'm not sure who is capable to answer (that's why DPL in
'to' field as well).
1. Do we have a cap on spending we
> "Lucas" == Lucas Nussbaum writes:
Lucas> On 20/07/16 at 19:12 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> I would rather propose the reverse approach, that if a change is
>> successful for cloud images, then it is a good idea to propose to
>> extend it to more use cases.
Lucas> Not
On 2016-07-20 12:38:47, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 20/07/16 at 19:12 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > I would rather propose the reverse approach, that if a change is successful
> > for cloud images, then it is a good idea to propose to extend it to more
> > use cases.
>
> Note that to judge if a
On 20/07/16 at 19:12 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I would rather propose the reverse approach, that if a change is successful
> for cloud images, then it is a good idea to propose to extend it to more
> use cases.
Note that to judge if a change is successful, its rationale should be
documented,
On 2016-07-20 11:45:27, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 20/07/16 at 11:26 +0200, Thomas Lange wrote:
> >
> > Using tasksel we already have different flavours of Debian
> > installations. Why not see the cloud images as another flavour, which
> > besides having some additional packages installed also tu
Le Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:45:27AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>
> I'm not against having a discussion about Debian providing different
> kernel settings profiles for different environments. This is something
> that could probably be useful (those settings can be configured for a
> reason, aft
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:26:55AM +0200, Thomas Lange wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 23:17:15 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
> > said:
>
> > I noticed because #830353, #830452 and #831249 are triggered by this.
> > One could argue that those test suites are a bit fragile, but on the
>
On 20/07/16 at 11:26 +0200, Thomas Lange wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 23:17:15 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
> > said:
>
> > I noticed because #830353, #830452 and #831249 are triggered by this.
> > One could argue that those test suites are a bit fragile, but on the
> > other hand
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 23:17:15 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum
> said:
> I noticed because #830353, #830452 and #831249 are triggered by this.
> One could argue that those test suites are a bit fragile, but on the
> other hand, I would expect an image labelled as "Official Debian" on
On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 08:59 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> - dkms, which also pulls linux-headers-amd64, gcc 4.8 and 4.9, make,
> patch, sudo: Apparently, this is required to build Intel's ixgbevf
> driver, which is built and shipped inside the image.
This driver is already present in our kern
17 matches
Mail list logo
