Re: AWS usage per group (April)

Dne 02. 05. 24 v 7:25 dop. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): Here comes April edition of resources running in AWS. It's a snapshot of resources running today. I had a bug in script and size of volumes were incorrectly calculated. Here is fixed version: FedoraGroup: abrt  Region: us-east-1

AWS usage per group (April)

Here comes April edition of resources running in AWS. It's a snapshot of resources running today. FedoraGroup: Not tagged  Region: ap-south-1    Service Name:    # of AMIs: 1302  Region: eu-south-1    Service Name:    # of AMIs: 102  Region: il-central-1    Service Name:    # of

Untagged resources in AWS

This is without AMIs and Snapshots that still produce looong list. If you are an owner add `FedoraGroup` tag to this resource. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/infra/sysadmin_guide/aws-access/#_role_and_user_policies Region: us-east-1 Instances: (name, id, owner)  * N/A

Re: Deleting old AMIs in AWS

Dne 23. 04. 24 v 3:31 odp. Dusty Mabe napsal(a): If you don't mind give us until next week to finish up loose ends on this. We are already adding the FedoraGroup=coreos tag to our snapshots/AMIs as we create them now, but we are working on a script to go apply that tag to our existing images.

Re: Deleting old AMIs in AWS

Dne 04. 04. 24 v 4:06 dop. Dusty Mabe napsal(a): If you don't mind let me try to get the FedoraGroup tag added to our CoreOS AMIs first. I'll try to set up something to get that done this week. Sure. I pause any deletion till end of the current freeze (scheduled to 2024-04-16). -- Miroslav

Re: Deleting old AMIs in AWS

Dne 02. 04. 24 v 7:45 odp. Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 07:13:56AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 14. 03. 24 v 9:58 dop. Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): FYI I plan to continue in AWS cleanup on Friday. I waited till Freeze is over - just to be safe. And now I want to delete

AWS usage per group (March)

Here comes January edition of resources running in AWS. It's a snapshot of resources running today. Per request of Miro Vadkerti I grouped it by (FedoraGroup, region, ServiceName). I will try to make it more compact next time, but giving up now as it already cost me half of the night.

Untagged resources in AWS

This is without AMIs and Snapshots that still produce looong list. Region: us-west-1 Volumes - [id name (attached to instance, owner)]:  * vol-0d7702fbe7ab94c6f N/A (famna.fedorainfracloud.org, N/A) Region: us-west-2 Instances: (name, id, owner)  * openscanhub-test (i-0c32e3d4eff4bf1a4, N/A)

Deleting old AMIs in AWS

FYI I plan to continue in AWS cleanup on Friday. I waited till Freeze is over - just to be safe. And now I want to delete the old AMIs. Likely in several waves. Going from oldest to ~2021. In this step I plan to keep the associated snapshots. So if I break something we can still restore the

AWS usage per group (February)

Here comes January edition of resources running in AWS. It's a snapshot of resources running today. For the first time, AMIs and Snapshots are included: FedoraGroup: Not tagged Region: ap-south-2 # of AMIs: 222 Snapshots: 2220 GB in 222 snapshots Region: ap-south-1

Untagged resources in AWS

This is without AMIs and Snapshots that still produce looong list. Region: ap-southeast-1 Instances: (name, id, owner)  * proxy38 (i-0a1ee820c765d573c, N/A) Volumes - [id name (attached to instance, owner)]:  * vol-0cbc4cc3e8cab429f N/A (proxy38, N/A) Region: us-east-1 Instances: (name, id,

Re: AWS cleanup - what to delete next?

Dne 09. 02. 24 v 20:34 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): I think we should leave "GA" images. Even thought they are EOL for the most part, I think it's still possibly nice to be able to spin one up to test something or the like. We can find the names on our download server,

Different owner of some Fedora-Cloud-Base images in AWS?

I was wondering why I cannot tag some images in AWS and I found that some GA images in AWS have different owner. I.e. all our images has Owner account ID 125523088429 But e.g. ami-0e4e634d022c1a3f8 in ap-southeast-4 region has owner id 569228561889. There are more such cases, but it seems

Re: AWS cleanup - what to delete next?

Dne 09. 02. 24 v 18:27 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): I think we should leave "GA" images. Even thought they are EOL for the most part, I think it's still possibly nice to be able to spin one up to test something or the like. We can find the names on our download server, ie,

Re: AWS cleanup - what to delete next?

Dne 08. 02. 24 v 17:09 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): Where I can continue witht the cleanup? There is several dozen thousand of AMIs. At the end of this email I will give random sample from the list. For the record, here is complete list containing 150k lines [9MB] https://k00.fr/s7xl2itj

AWS cleanup - what to delete next?

Yesterday I finally deleted all Fedora-AtomicHost AMIs and associated snapshots (it took whole night to finish). This time, I know we have to start with AMIs first (and only then delete snapshots). Where I can continue witht the cleanup? There is several dozen thousand of AMIs. At the end of

Re: HEADS UP - deletion of Fedora Atomic Hosts AMIs

Dne 09. 12. 23 v 9:21 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): As mentioned in previous thread - I plan to delete from AWS all Fedora Atomic Hosts and related snapshots. Atomic Host EOLed at 2019 and we have the images stored elsewhere too. To protect Christmas calm period. I will delete is no sooner than

Not tagged resource in AWS

This is a resource from AWS that does not have propper tag: Region: eu-west-1 Volumes - [id name (attached to instance, owner)]:   * vol-0e5efafe67ed944ad N/A (apps-containerization, N/A) Can the owner please tag (or delete) it? -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno,

AWS usage per group (Janurary)

Here comes January edition of resources running in AWS. It's a snapshot of resources running today. FedoraGroup: garbage-collector  Region: ap-southeast-1    Volume Type: standard - Total Size: 6 GiB FedoraGroup: min  Region: eu-central-1    Instance Type: t3.2xlarge - Count: 1    

AWS usage per group (December)

Here comes December edition of resources running in AWS. It's a snapshot of resources running today. FedoraGroup: infra  Region: ap-south-1    Instance Type: c5d.xlarge - Count: 1    Volume Type: gp3 - Total Size: 8 GiB  Region: eu-central-1    Instance Type: c5d.xlarge - Count: 1  

HEADS UP - deletion of Fedora Atomic Hosts AMIs

As mentioned in previous thread - I plan to delete from AWS all Fedora Atomic Hosts and related snapshots. Atomic Host EOLed at 2019 and we have the images stored elsewhere too. To protect Christmas calm period. I will delete is no sooner than 2024-01-09. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat,

Re: Heads up - AWS Snapshots cleanup

Dne 29. 11. 23 v 8:36 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): On Friday (2023-12-01) I plan to delete all Snapshots that were created before 2019 and do not have tag FedoraGroup. This phase has finished. Any snapshot older than 2019 that remained is because AWS refused to delete it - likely because

AWS usage per group (November)

Here comes November edition of resources running in AWS. It's a snapshot of resources running today. FedoraGroup: respins  Region: us-east-1    Volume Type: gp3 - Total Size: 500 GiB FedoraGroup: ci  Region: us-east-1    Instance Type: c5.2xlarge - Count: 3    Volume Type: gp3 -

Re: Heads up - AWS Snapshots cleanup

Dne 02. 12. 23 v 22:45 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): I wonder - do we have written retention policy for our images? Do we want to keep the old one? Public ones? Private ones? It seems that Fedora Atomic Host is EOLed since 2019-11-26 https://projectatomic.io/blog/2019/11/fedora-atomic-host

Re: Heads up - AWS Snapshots cleanup

Dne 29. 11. 23 v 8:36 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): On Friday (2023-12-01) I plan to delete all Snapshots that were created before 2019 and do not have tag FedoraGroup. On next Friday (2023-12-08) I plan to delete all Snapshots that were created in 2021 and earlier and do not have tag Fedora

Re: Heads up - AWS Snapshots cleanup

Dne 28. 11. 23 v 23:28 Sandro napsal(a): On 28-11-2023 15:54, Miroslav Suchý wrote: On Friday I plan to delete all Snapshots that were created before 2019 and do not have tag FedoraGroup. On next Friday (2023-12-01) I plan to delete all Snapshots that were created in 2021 and earlier and do

Heads up - AWS Snapshots cleanup

HEADS UP On Friday I plan to delete all Snapshots that were created before 2019 and do not have tag FedoraGroup. On next Friday (2023-12-01) I plan to delete all Snapshots that were created in 2021 and earlier and do not have tag Fedora Group. This will be done in all regions. As mentioned

Re: AWS Snapshots without FedoraGroup tag

Dne 09. 11. 23 v 20:39 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): Well, actually, we should probibly check in on the thing thats cleaning up the amis? and confirm that it is deleting the snapshots? I think that is this: roles/fedimg/templates/clean-amis.py in ansible. and it does delete the snapshot... so,

AWS cleanup

During the autumn cleanup I deleted several abandoned instances and volumes. I made a snapshot of each such volume and tagged it with FedoraGroup=garbage-collector and then deleted these volumes. So far no one objected that he is missing something. I plan to delete these snapshots with

Re: AWS Snapshots without FedoraGroup tag

Dne 06. 11. 23 v 20:45 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): Can we get what volume they are snapshots of? Perhaps the volume name would help us figure things out? Most of the 6GiB volumes like snap-098326d474a07f706 is snapshot of vol- which does not exist (this snapshot is from 2018) Even if I

Re: AWS Snapshots without FedoraGroup tag

Dne 03. 11. 23 v 16:15 Dusty Mabe napsal(a): Does that mean we should set ours to FedoraGroup=coreos ? Yes. The values are not defined. I use the values to group the resources together. If you want you can even use two labels: coreos-dev, coreos-ci. Or just coreos. It is up to you. --

Re: AWS Snapshots without FedoraGroup tag

Dne 03. 11. 23 v 2:06 Dusty Mabe napsal(a): We'll clean up the ones we do not need soon. I'm sorry it is taking longer than we thought it would to get garbage collection implemented. Thank you. * Fedora-Cloud-Base-29-20190729.0.x86_64-hvm-us-east-1-standard-0 - is this snapshots used to

AWS Snapshots without FedoraGroup tag

We have (almost) all instances and volumes properly tagged. Now let check Snapshots. OMG - there are A LOT of them. The list has 97k lines! Because of the size I will not attach it and instead provide link to download it: https://k00.fr/8p59mvcw If you help me to identify something, I can

Re: AWS usage per group

Dne 31. 10. 23 v 12:30 Frank Ch. Eigler napsal(a): Hi - http://debuginfod1.aws.centos.org/ uses io1 type volume. This is suboptimal as io2 is better. But from monitoring the machine does not utilize the IOPS and the price for this volume is ten times more than gp3 which would provide

AWS usage per group

Here comes October edition of resources running in AWS. It snapshot of resources running today's morning. Some TestingFarm resources are not included because they still do not tag properly all resources. Few notes: http://debuginfod1.aws.centos.org/ uses io1 type volume. This is suboptimal

AWS discontinue IAM...

From https://us-east-1.console.aws.amazon.com/iamv2/home?region=us-east-2#/home Attention: Extended Deadline for Updating Your Access Permissions - December 11, 2023 AWS has discontinued use of old IAM permissions for Billing, Cost Management, and Accounts consoles. If you do not take action,

Resource usage in AWS per group

Now when we have all instances and volumes tagged. I can say who is using what resources. Below you will find the aggregated overview of resources we are using in AWS. If you will not mind, I plan to send this overview every month. My intention is to be able to see the overview of long-term

Re: AWS Instances without tag FedoraGroup=*

 = Current status We have almost everything tagged with FedoraGroup. There are some small leftovers (see bottom of this email). If no one stop me (or tag it) I will delete them by end of next week. There may appear some new volumes without propper tags. Because Kubernetese cluster does not

Re: AWS - strange error: volume in use, but is not attached

Dne 13. 09. 23 v 20:39 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): https://ap-southeast-1.console.aws.amazon.com/ec2/home?region=ap-southeast-1#VolumeDetails:volumeId=vol-495d4a40 i.e. vol-495d4a40 in ap-southeast-1 cannot be deleted, because is "in-use". And I can only "detach" or "force detach", but there is no

Re: AWS Instances without tag FedoraGroup=*

I have cleanup a lot. I notified Testing farm, they will tag their resource soon. BTW if you are in CC, then you likely own one of the resources in AWS. Please add tag FedoraGroup=* to it. Otherwise it may be deleted. The remaining stuff is: Region: ca-central-1 Instances: (name, id,

Re: AWS Instances without tag FedoraGroup=*

Dne 11. 09. 23 v 6:45 Fabian Arrotin napsal(a): I can probably help for that  AFAIK the ec2 instances in the .centos.org domain are all tagged though, so do you have a list of ec2 instances/volumes that are really from centos and not tagged properly ? In a previous mail I saw something like

AWS - strange error: volume in use, but is not attached

When cleaning the old volumes I find strange error This volume: https://ap-southeast-1.console.aws.amazon.com/ec2/home?region=ap-southeast-1#VolumeDetails:volumeId=vol-495d4a40 i.e. vol-495d4a40 in ap-southeast-1 cannot be deleted, because is "in-use". And I can only "detach" or "force

Re: AWS Instances without tag FedoraGroup=*

Dne 08. 09. 23 v 18:11 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): I have no idea what to do with the rest. E.g., vol-ef097386 from eu-west-1. Not attached to anything. No tags. No reference in ansible.git. No information.The only thing that comes to my mind is: make a snapshot, tag the snapshot with

Re: AWS Instances without tag FedoraGroup=*

Dne 11. 09. 23 v 6:45 Fabian Arrotin napsal(a): AFAIK the ec2 instances in the .centos.org domain are all tagged though, so do you have a list of ec2 instances/volumes that are really from centos and not tagged properly ? In a previous mail I saw something like "centos stream builders"

Re: AWS Instances without tag FedoraGroup=*

Dne 08. 09. 23 v 18:11 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): Should I mail testing farm folks about this? Or would you like to? I will ping TestingFarm people in morning. But I will welcome if you can write Centos guys. I do not know who is the right contact. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Manager,

Re: AWS Instances without tag FedoraGroup=*

Hi Simon, You have in AWS under Fedora's account in ap-northeast-1 region instance i-0399e6de6e283c229. At least this instance has your ssh key. Otherwise we have no infromation about this instance. If you are still using this instance, please add the tags:

Re: AWS Instances without tag FedoraGroup=*

Hi Andrei, You have in AWS under Fedora's account in us-east-2 region instance i-030bd89ccd0a66013. At least this instance has your ssh key. Otherwise we have no infromation about this instance. If you are still using this instance, please add the tags:

Re: AWS Instances without tag FedoraGroup=*

Dne 07. 09. 23 v 20:49 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): Nice! I think dkirwan should know about Discourse-test and mobrien should know about mobrien-test, and I think the rest are centos ones? Hmm, not everything: Region: ca-central-1 Instances: (name, id, owner) Volumes - [id (attached to instance,

Re: AWS Instances without tag FedoraGroup=*

Dne 06. 09. 23 v 1:05 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): * fedora-packages-ng (test) (i-0f15e4c4b9a49be4a) I don't think this one is needed anymore. Right. Not needed. Terminated. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys

AWS Instances without tag FedoraGroup=*

According our SOP https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/infra/sysadmin_guide/aws-access/#_role_and_user_policies Users MUST tag resources with their FedoraGroup tag within one day, or the resource may be removed. I created a small script and queried all resources in all regions for

Re: Lot of snapshots in AWS Sydney region

Dne 13. 07. 23 v 0:26 Dusty Mabe napsal(a): If you say it's an issue then hopefully we can give this some priority and get to it soon. Removing the "old ones" isn't that easy to do. Our production AMIs and development AMIs are all mixed together so it would be hard to come up with a criteria

Re: Lot of snapshots in AWS Sydney region

Dne 11. 07. 23 v 15:53 Dusty Mabe napsal(a): Apologies for not responding sooner. Actually for some reason this is the first email I've seen in the thread so maybe I need to check my spam filters. Either way, apologies. The reason you are seeing snapshots but no volumes is because these

Re: Lot of snapshots in AWS Sydney region

Dne 05. 07. 23 v 21:17 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 04:02:02PM +0200, Fabian Arrotin wrote: On 03/07/2023 06:39, Miroslav Suchý wrote: I was going through our spending in AWS and I found that we spent a lot in Sydney region (?). In details most of the bill there is because

Lot of snapshots in AWS Sydney region

I was going through our spending in AWS and I found that we spent a lot in Sydney region (?). In details most of the bill there is because of stored snapshots. There is 7508 of them dated to back to 2013. For volumes that does not exists any more. The only instances (and volumes) we have in

awscli2 and Fedora sso

Has anyone use awscli2? How did you configure it to use Fedora SSO? I played with it, but with not luck. BTW awcli2 is now in package review process and is available at https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/fedora-review/fedora-review-2189420-awscli2/build/5851296/ Miroslav

Re: AWS volume cleanup

Dne 24. 04. 23 v 18:51 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): Did you only look at us-east-1? There might be more in other regions? (although less I suspect). Yeah, we have lots of volumes in Ohio. Yes, I am checking other regions. FYI I started manually with the biggest volumes. And I pause between them.

AWS volume cleanup

When I have been working in the AWS console I noticed we have lots of volumes that are: not described, not owned and not attached. Sometimes even combination of all of these. And some of such volumes have been created in 2020. Here is screenshot of suspicious volumes: https://k00.fr/1cn48fze

Re: AWS gp2 -> gp3

Dne 04. 04. 23 v 23:47 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): I changed all Copr volumes to gp3 already. After the Fedora release and after the freeze I will migrate all remaining volumes. Sure, agreed. I have started migrating the volumes. Miroslav ___

Re: AWS gp2 -> gp3

Dne 05. 04. 23 v 19:24 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): Currenly we upload 'standard' and 'gp2'. I failed to find what "standard" means. Likely one of the magnetic ones, but don't know which one. Should we do 'standard' and 'gp3'? or 'sc1' and 'gp3'? Yes. I guess thats really for the cloud sig to

Re: AWS gp2 -> gp3

Dne 04. 04. 23 v 23:50 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): I'm still unsure if that means we only do gp3 or what is the list of ones we do after this change? Depends on your use case. For Copr we use gp3 for all volumes but - copr-dist-git (5TB) and copr-be data volume where we store dnf repositories

Re: AWS gp2 -> gp3

Dne 03. 04. 23 v 19:37 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): fedimg is the thing that uploads the official cloud images, so if it does gp3, then the fedora images are gp3. :) The volume types are passed on command line.. but if not, then it is read from the config... that I modified. OMG I screwed that! And

Re: AWS gp2 -> gp3

Dne 01. 04. 23 v 20:27 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): Should we stop uploading 'standard' and 'gp2'? I mean, is there any reason anyone would want to use one of those? I find it just confusing that there's multiple types for each image. If we can, I'd say we should just do gp3? standard is magnetic

Re: AWS gp2 -> gp3

Dne 01. 04. 23 v 10:45 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a): gp2:  * $0.10 per GB-month gp3: I forgot to add price for gp3: $0.08 / GB-month Miroslav ___ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email

AWS gp2 -> gp3

tl;dr I want to change **all** storage types in AWS from gp2 to gp3 next week. The recent Change proposal   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CloudEC2gp3 brought to my attention that gp3 is actually faster and cheaper than gp2. The comparision is as follows: gp2:  * $0.10 per GB-month

Re: repos.fedorapeople.org

Dne 09. 01. 23 v 13:33 Thorsten Leemhuis napsal(a): 1) Create project "kernel-vanilla-mainline" in Copr 2) Create project "kernel-vanilla-mainline-wo-mergew" in Copr and in settings set:  * external repositories: copr://user/kernel-vanilla-mainline  * Runtime dependencies:

Re: repos.fedorapeople.org

Dne 09. 01. 23 v 13:12 Thorsten Leemhuis napsal(a): Either I'm missing something or your explanation is missing one important detail: can I rename a project once I tested the newly built packages so that users of my repos get the latest packages with the next "dnf update" without doing anything?

Re: repos.fedorapeople.org

Dne 09. 01. 23 v 7:38 Thorsten Leemhuis napsal(a): That made me remember the biggest showstopper: I regularly push the results of one build to two different repositories (which ones depends on the phase of the kernel devel cycle and if Fedora is shipping the latest stable series). To explain:

Re: repos.fedorapeople.org

Dne 09. 01. 23 v 7:12 Thorsten Leemhuis napsal(a): I tried a few (three? four?) years ago and there were iirc three showstoppers back then. I'm sure I wrote them down somewhere, but I can't find it right now.  But I think I remember one: It iirc (and afaik back then) was not possible to build

Re: repos.fedorapeople.org

Dne 29. 12. 22 v 10:41 Casper napsal(a): Hi, COPR is awesome and provides online repositories, with a perfect integration in dnf. How about to close"https://repos.fedorapeople.org/; ? It seems very old... Icon Name Last

Re: Software Bill of Materials for Fedora

Dne 11. 07. 22 v 4:53 Jason Shepherd napsal(a): Red Hat Product Security are building an application called Component Registry to meet the requirements set out in the recent Executive Order 14028 [1], "Improving the Nation's Cybersecurity". The executive order requires that software producers

Re: on rpms

Dne 23. 05. 22 v 20:57 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): However, now a days we have a number of new apps that are deployed in openshift and aren't using rpms, but pip or s2i or other things. Regarding pip applications - we have pyp2rpm and pyp2spec which can convert to rpm easily. And we have  

Re: planet

Dne 01. 03. 22 v 22:28 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): So, I can think of a number of options and would love everyone who has thoughts on it to chime in: Thank you for kicking this off. 2. Switch to pluto and use account system 'website' fields of contributors. We could likely shove it in openshift and

RHEL8 for Copr builders

With the sunset of CentOS8 we want to allow builds on top real RHEL in Copr. Now that the RH Developer program is known, what are the option? Do we already use it somewhere? Or I will be the first to use it? :) I need it accessible from AWS so the repos we use in Koji are likely out of the

Re: status.fp.org concept

Dne 19. 05. 21 v 20:45 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): You mean the link to nagios? Or ? Yes. The link to older outages is not needed with new design. I'm a bit worried linking to nagios there will confuse people... Why? When something does not work (for me) then I go to status.f.o, then to

Re: status.fp.org concept

Dne 19. 05. 21 v 10:05 Ryan Lerch napsal(a): What is this link? I didn't see it on the old status when i was re-implementing status https://web.archive.org/web/20210414105928/https://status.fedoraproject.org/ Oh, it already disappeared during datacenter migration. This:

Re: status.fp.org concept

Dne 03. 05. 21 v 17:18 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a): The reason we are changing is because of that list. Too many people expect us to know instantly that something is broken, something like https://uptimerobot.com/ that rocky linux uses. They also expect us to be

Where to report accounts.fedoraproject.org issues

I used the new accounts.fedoraproject.org for the first time today (btw it is neat). But I immediately spot first issue. I struggle to find where to report it. It is more application issue and not operational, so I hesitate to report it as fedora-infra issue. Where I can report it? Can

Re: Postgresql server in aws.f.o

Dne 15. 03. 21 v 17:28 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 05:20:02PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: Dne 15. 03. 21 v 17:05 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a):   * I would love to run the server on RHEL 8. That should be completely fine according to https://www.redhat.com/en

Re: Postgresql server in aws.f.o

Dne 15. 03. 21 v 17:05 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a):   * I would love to run the server on RHEL 8. That should be completely fine according to https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/extending-no-cost-red-hat-enterprise-linux-open-source-organizations

Postgresql server in aws.f.o

Hi. In Copr we use postgresql on copr-frontend. I decide that it is time to split it off to separate server. I am going to create new machine in AWS and deploy postgresql there. I have several open questions: * is there interest in having it as general sql server in AWS datacenter for some

Re: ssh git access to src.fedoraproject.org feedback

Dne 03. 03. 21 v 22:53 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): * All users in the 'packager' group have accounts on pkgs01.iad2 * All these users have a 'wrapper' on their ssh key that runs the pagure wrapper that checks who they are, etc. Cons: * only packagers have accounts for ssh, so non packagers just get

Re: Fedora packages site down

Dne 24. 11. 20 v 22:53 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > Miroslav: what do you think? I am not personally attached to any solution. Whatever has wider consensus work for me. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys

Re: Fedora packages site down

Dne 18. 11. 20 v 2:11 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > We are close to replacing this app with a new setup... > > see the 'packages app' thread in this very list. ;) Did we come to conclusion which app (out of these two) we are going to deploy? If that will be the fedora-packages-ng I will be happy

Re: DKIM & fedora lists

Dne 03. 11. 20 v 18:13 Dominique Martinet napsal(a): > So I was wondering how do people deal with that? We have been dealing with that in Copr too (some people reported that they did not get emails). In our case, it seems that emails sent to RH (this is what we can test) get correctly to those

Heads-up: New dist-git release

FYI: There is new dist-git release: https://github.com/release-engineering/dist-git/wiki/Release-1.16 Clime built it and submitted to Bodhi. From the release notes: * Added support for fedora-messaging. Fedmsg is still possible, but it is listed as soft requirement (Suggest). * spec

Buildsystem indentification

FYI Mock 2.5 has been just released and contains https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/pull/608 which set different user agent for DNF when DNF is used by Mock. This may allow you to differ Mock from users when creating statistics about downloads from repo. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA

Re: s390x for EPEL

Dne 27. 07. 20 v 21:46 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > Can you explain how you plan to do Fedora s390x builds? Emulation? Yes, emulation. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: packages app

Dne 28. 07. 20 v 1:18 Brendan Early napsal(a): > How are you getting the data in ng?! From a clean state on my computer, The code remained unchanged. The most time the code spend quering PDC. Here: https://github.com/xsuchy/fedora-packages-ng/blob/master/fedoracommunity/search/index.py#L212 >

Re: s390x for EPEL

Dne 27. 07. 20 v 16:50 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a): > Can you use CleFOS for s390x? This? https://hub.docker.com/_/clefos/ I will try to rather use RHEL directly. I will see if I can get the entitlements. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys

s390x for EPEL

What is using Koji to build EPEL builds for s390x. We want to enable s390x in Copr. It is without problem for Fedora, but we cannot do that for EPEL, because there is no CentOS for s390x. Do we have entitlements for RHEL I can use? Or we have some local repo? Something completely different? --

Re: packages app

Dne 16. 07. 20 v 21:56 Brendan Early napsal(a): > and would time out if an external service took too long to respond. Only if you wanted to list builds, bugs the overview page is more or less static (i.e. it is rendered just from local DB). Fedora-packages-static does not list them at all.

Re: What is our technical debt?

Dne 30. 06. 20 v 9:44 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > What are you talking about here? The Fedora release process? The > mass-branching > in dist-git? This. And creating new gpg keys, new mock configs, new tags in Koji, add release to retrace.f.o, Copr, ... I have a dream where you just bump up

Re: What is our technical debt?

Dne 25. 06. 20 v 21:27 Pierre-Yves Chibon napsal(a): > What else would we want in there? Automate branching. Or to be more general - automate new release. The whole process include way too many manual steps. Allow people to create groups in FAS without the need to create infra issue. --

Re: Demo of new Fedora Packages

Dne 16. 06. 20 v 0:40 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > So, can this run as a openshift app? Yes. As soon as it will be back. > I assume it uses madpi for things? MDAPI, PDC. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP

Re: Demo of new Fedora Packages

Dne 10. 06. 20 v 10:33 Michal Konecny napsal(a): > * Home link in bottom of the page throws 404 > (http://35.170.54.152/url_for('coprs_ns.coprs_show')) > * Input / in search field throws 500 > * Input ? in search field throws 500 > * I tried * as input and I got over 900 results, but I only saw

Demo of new Fedora Packages

It took longer than expected, but I have something to show. Finally! Live demo: http://35.170.54.152/ Some tabs may not work now because the server are being migrated. Search database is snapshot from May and may not contain all packages. Main changes: * Python3 ! * usage of PatternFly * removed

Re: The packages app has a short runway

Dne 28. 03. 20 v 1:09 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > Hey, any news on this? I guess the problem is as always time. > > How far along is it? Could we run a demo/dev version in communishift? Yes. Time :( I have this as huge debt. I will try to prepare something. But still I have "just" the page which

new task for creating swap file

I created new task for creating swap file and mount it. https://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ansible.git/tree/tasks/swap.yml It is handy in AWS where flavors does not have swap disk. You can use it like: tasks: - import_tasks: "{{ tasks_path }}/swap.yml" when: -

Re: When adding hosts to ansible please first update DNS

Dne 17. 02. 20 v 21:50 Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a): > Because ip addresses can change, and we do not have time to fix it in > multiple places, That was me. We will be adding 9 machines. One by one. So my intention was to go with IP and then after we are done (one week) flip it to dns. But

datacenter=aws

not modify fedora*.repo It is probably needed for centos and other, but I needed just this. Miroslav Přeposlaná zpráva Předmět: [ansible] do not modify fedora*.repo when deploying in AWS Datum: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 13:27:04 + (UTC) Od: Miroslav Suchý Komu: sysadmin-memb

  1   2   3   >