Re: Stretch EC2 information doesn't appear to be correct

2018-02-27 Thread Noah Meyerhans
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:10:48PM -0500, Christopher David Howie wrote: > * AMI name is "debian-stretch-hvm-x86_64-gp2-2018-02-22-67467" > > * it is owned by AWS account ID 379101102735 > > * For region us-east-1, the AMI ID is ami-0dc82b70 Apologies, this was my fault. The AMIs are generated

Stretch EC2 information doesn't appear to be correct

2018-02-27 Thread Christopher David Howie
Hello, I'm referencing this wiki page: There's conflicting pieces of information here, and with an abundance of caution I would like to verify that I am using the correct AMI. The page makes the following claims: * AMI name is

Re: Package conflicts, breaks, and problematic upgrades... with irqbalance

2018-02-27 Thread Zach Marano
Are you running with both our package (google-compute-engine) and irqbalance? If I remember, there is a possible race condition where- due to startup ordering- irqbalance would run first and then our script ran afterwards. In other cases, it was the opposite. I believe in Ubuntu it was always

Re: Package conflicts, breaks, and problematic upgrades... with irqbalance

2018-02-27 Thread Bastian Blank
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 08:48:12PM +, Zach Marano wrote: > So you are saying I should make our package: > Priority: optional > Provides: irqbalance > Conflicts: irqbalance > > Would the Provides and Conflicts statement... conflict? This is still not stable solution, at least without

Re: Package conflicts, breaks, and problematic upgrades... with irqbalance

2018-02-27 Thread Bastian Blank
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 08:36:16PM +, Zach Marano wrote: > > So it does something. > Yes, that is our script doing that. Reboot and see what irqbalance does. I forgot that I did reboot. Also you said that irqbalance actually reverts the settings. Bastian -- Without facts, the decision

Re: Package conflicts, breaks, and problematic upgrades... with irqbalance

2018-02-27 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 02/27/2018 02:46 AM, Zach Marano wrote: > According to the policy manual [3], using 'breaks' should work here > because our package is installed already and the kernel is trying to > install irqbalance on upgrade. Usually, IIRC, Breaks: is for when 2 packages hold the same file. Here, it

Re: Package conflicts, breaks, and problematic upgrades... with irqbalance

2018-02-27 Thread Bastian Blank
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 07:14:38PM +, Zach Marano wrote: > irqbalance is supposed to spread interrupts across all CPU's but in GCE > (and from what I recall KVM as well) it ends up assigning all interrupts to > CPU0. It may be considered broken except that it was originally meant for > bare

Re: Package conflicts, breaks, and problematic upgrades... with irqbalance

2018-02-27 Thread Thomas Lange
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 19:14:38 +, Zach Marano said: > So, irqbalance is a recommended package not a required package. But because its a recommended package by the kernel package it seems to get > priority to be installed even though it is not installed

Re: Package conflicts, breaks, and problematic upgrades... with irqbalance

2018-02-27 Thread Zach Marano
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:06 PM Bastian Blank wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 01:46:15AM +, Zach Marano wrote: > > The problem is that irqbalance breaks on GCE and KVM (and likely other > > virtualization platforms). So, in our debian package for > > google-compute-engine