today's UEC report

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 05:17:37PM -0500, Dustin Kirkland wrote:
> So today was an extraordinarily frustrating day testing UEC  :-/
> 
> Bandwidth to/from the archive is abysmal.  Everything takes 100x longer
> to download than normal, due to Beta traffic.  "apt-get update" took 60
> minutes.  My local rsync mirror job has been running for >20 hours.

I'm sorry to hear it was so slow.  I think it will be better on Monday after
the beta peak subsides.  I'm running an update right now and getting
200kB/sec, which is not fantastic but lets me get work done.

> I eventually did rsync the daily ISO, only to find several regressions
> (already) post beta.
> 
> The first was an openiscsi issue.  I supplied Colin with the logs and he
> uploaded a fix.  Installs from ISO are broken until that makes it onto
> the next build.

Are you referring to this issue?

open-iscsi (2.0.870.1-0ubuntu12) karmic; urgency=low

  * debian/open-iscsi-udeb.finish-install: Stop checking
    disk-detect/iscsi/enable, as that template doesn't exist any more.

or something else?

When you say "installs from ISO are broken", do you mean all installations,
or only ones which use iSCSI?

> Next, the Upstart issues were not fixed in Scott's last upload.  Looks
> like its supposed to remove /etc/init/dbus-reconnect.conf, but didn't.
> I showed Scott this, and he fix that too.

This seems to be fixed here:

upstart (0.6.3-7) karmic; urgency=low

  * Ignore initramfs pids that don't exist.  LP: #440071.
    - you still need to ensure that the pid's parent is init, there's no
      cheap way to test for that.
  * Remove "console owner" and "console output" from rc scripts.
  * Try harder to remove dbus-reconnect.conf

> I was able to hack my way around both of those issues to get my cloud
> installed.  Unfortunately, registration and running instances are not
> working very well at this point.

What's wrong with registration?

> Dan logged into my box, poked around a bit, and found that my database
> was wedged.  He said this is issue LP: #436885, and should be fixed in
> our next merge.
> 
> I tried for several hours to work around this issue, but couldn't.  

Sounds very frustrating.  If it was 436885, I wonder why you're hitting it
so readily now, when it wasn't happening to us at all in previous
small-scale testing.

-- 
 - mdz