search for: envinroment

Hi There, Im running an amazon instance with nginx proxying to a unicorn sock. For some reason, even though i specify the production environment, when being visited by nginx, the site shows errors in development form. Interestingly, when running on a port rather than a sock, if i visit that port, the errors are rendered as normal with a 500 page, the same port, throught nginx, shows errors

From: Siwei Liu <loseweigh at gmail.com> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 19:32:05 -0700 > And I assume everyone here understands the use case for live > migration (in the context of providing cloud service) is very > different, and we have to hide the netdevs. If not, I'm more than > happy to clarify. I think you still need to clarify. netdevs are netdevs. If they have special

From: Siwei Liu <loseweigh at gmail.com> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 19:32:05 -0700 > And I assume everyone here understands the use case for live > migration (in the context of providing cloud service) is very > different, and we have to hide the netdevs. If not, I'm more than > happy to clarify. I think you still need to clarify. netdevs are netdevs. If they have special

...2 Name=test, Records=1, Children=0 A: 192.168.122.33 (flags=f0, serial=5, ttl=3600) What other check I can do ? > Finally, do not use the Fedora Samba packages as a DC in production, > only use them for testing, they are marked experimental for a reason. Yes, I know, this is a test envinroment for test Fedora Package and MIT Kerberos in order to make it, sooner or later, stop being experimental Thanks -- Dario Lesca (inviato dal mio Linux Fedora 31 Workstation)

...it means they don't and shouldn't care about the existence and the occurence of live migration, but they do if userspace toolstack and libraries have to be updated or modified, which means potential dependency brokeness of their applications. They don't like any change to the userspace envinroment (existing apps lift-and-shift, no recompilation, no re-packaging, no re-certification needed), while no one barely cares about ABI or API compatibility in the kernel level, as long as their applications don't break. I agree the current bypass solution for SR-IOV live migration requires guest c...

Hi, I'm doing some tests of samba DC 4.12.0 + MIT (experimental) Kerberos + Bind DNS + Dhcpd + Chronyd on Fedora 32 beta. All work fine except this issue: The dhcp work, and the script for record the name of clients into dns is disable (like Rowland suggest). https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2020-February/134875.html If I join a new windows client to domain all work fine and

...39;t and shouldn't care about the > existence and the occurence of live migration, but they do if > userspace toolstack and libraries have to be updated or modified, > which means potential dependency brokeness of their applications. They > don't like any change to the userspace envinroment (existing apps > lift-and-shift, no recompilation, no re-packaging, no re-certification > needed), while no one barely cares about ABI or API compatibility in > the kernel level, as long as their applications don't break. > > I agree the current bypass solution for SR-IOV live mi...

...'t care about the >> existence and the occurence of live migration, but they do if >> userspace toolstack and libraries have to be updated or modified, >> which means potential dependency brokeness of their applications. They >> don't like any change to the userspace envinroment (existing apps >> lift-and-shift, no recompilation, no re-packaging, no re-certification >> needed), while no one barely cares about ABI or API compatibility in >> the kernel level, as long as their applications don't break. >> >> I agree the current bypass solutio...