- luv-main - example.com

Re: Utopic and Virtualbox
by Bob 06 Nov '14

06 Nov '14

Thanks Mick, >> I completely removed all the Virtualbox packages and reinstalled from the repository. >> Still problems > I suppose the suggestion was to purge all the virtualbox packages from the repo, than trying to install the one provided by oracle. BTW this is the suggestion I would give you. > > Mick In desperation I removed all Virtualbox packages again with the package manager, then purged all instances of Virtualbox as suggested by Brian I then reinstalled from the repository and the package manager responded with the following errors: virtualbox subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 virtualbox-dkms dependency problems - leaving unconfigured virtualbox-qt dependency problems - leaving unconfigured I have had a look at the Oracle site but it appears that they do not yet provide packages for Utopic - only Trusty is mentioned. It appears to be the same as the one in the repository? Thanks Bob

1 0

Re: Utopic and Virtualbox
by Bob 06 Nov '14

06 Nov '14

Thanks again Brian, > > On 6 Nov 2014 17:35, "Bob" <forums(a)wtaustralia.com > <mailto:forums@wtaustralia.com>> wrote: > >> Setting up virtualbox (4.3.18-dfsg-1) ... > >> insserv: script virtualbox: service vboxdrv already provided! > >> insserv: exiting now! > >> update-rc.d: error: insserv rejected the script header > >> dpkg: error processing package virtualbox (--configure): > >> subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit > status 1 > > That is the key errors here. All other errors are due to virtualbox > not being installed correctly. > > This could be because you have two sets of virtualbox packages > installed at the same time. > I completely removed all the Virtualbox packages and reinstalled from the repository. Still problems - it asks me to run setup still. I tried running it from the Command Line and got this error? bob@Comp-NC:~$ virtualbox WARNING: The character device /dev/vboxdrv does not exist. Please install the virtualbox-dkms package and the appropriate headers, most likely linux-headers-generic. You will not be able to start VMs until this problem is fixed. Qt WARNING: Bus::open: Can not get ibus-daemon's address. Virtualbox-dkms and kernel header files for version 3.16.0 on 32 bit x86 SMP are both installed? Bob

1 0

Utopic and Virtualbox
by Bob 06 Nov '14

06 Nov '14

Hello all, Since I upgraded to Kubuntu utopic I have been unable to use Virtualbox. It was all working fine prior to the upgrade. I have tried everything so need some assistance. I have unistalled and reinstalled but the problem persists. After the reinstall using apt this is the last part of the install dialogue: Setting up virtualbox (4.3.18-dfsg-1) ... insserv: script virtualbox: service vboxdrv already provided! insserv: exiting now! update-rc.d: error: insserv rejected the script header dpkg: error processing package virtualbox (--configure): subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1 dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of virtualbox-dkms: virtualbox-dkms depends on virtualbox (>= 4.3.18-dfsg-1); however: Package virtualbox is not configured yet. Package virtualbox-4.1 which provides virtualbox is not installed. dpkg: error processing package virtualbox-dkms (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of virtualbox-qt: virtualbox-qt depends on virtualbox (= 4.3.18-dfsg-1); however: Package virtualbox is not configured yet. Package virtualbox-4.1 which provides virtualbox is not installed. dpkg: error processing package virtualbox-qt (--configure): dependency problems - leaving unconfigured No apport report written because the error message indicates its a followup error from a previous failure. No apport report written because the error message indicates its a followup error from a previous failure. Errors were encountered while processing: virtualbox virtualbox-dkms virtualbox-qt E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) I can't understand why it is looking for 4.1 - I have been using 4.3 and it is installing 4.3? Any help appreciated. Bob

4 6

Re: [luv-talk] Action Needed: What we can do to stop the data retention bill in the next few days
by Daniel Jitnah 06 Nov '14

06 Nov '14

On 06/11/14 12:53, Lev Lafayette wrote: > On Thu, November 6, 2014 12:19 pm, Michael Scott wrote: >> I would mention the "investment" in school halls as just one issue. The >> insulation batts, as another. Perhaps even the $900 taxpayers' bonus. In 20+ yrs time, these school halls, libraries etc will most likely still be here and would have been used by many thousands of pupils. The pupils attending these schools now could well be parents of the kids using these same facilities in 20 yrs. If you then tell them then about the controversy regarding the funding to build these facilities, what do you think they will be thinking about the Abbott opposition? Cheers, Daniel. > > Most of which were good measures. Our economy went > > The capital investment of the BER ("the school halls") had a 97% success > rate, according to the BER Implementation Taskforce report. > > The Home Insulation Scheme was a great success and whilst it is unpopular > to say so, it saved lives (see > http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2010/02/24/did-the-insulation-program-…) > > Granted the government was utterly weak on the issue and went to water > when confronted with the prospect of defending a complex truth against a > simple lie. > > I'm not so sure about the taxpayer's bonus tho'. Proportionally it was > better for those on low incomes and certainly did help out local retail. > > Overall the following article by Alan Austin illustrates piece-by-piece > how the picture of Labor being poor economic managers and the LNP as being > good managers is less than accurate. > > http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/we-really-mus… > > >

2 1

Australian School Curriculum
by Brian May 05 Nov '14

05 Nov '14

Hello, At last night's LUV meeting, there was talk of the Australian School curriculum being inadequate for IT. There was a really good keynote talk at PyConAu 2014 that covers topic and upcoming changes for the national curriculum, I would recommend people watch it. (even if it is possibly a bit dated now) See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVv7fCwVbp4 -- Brian May <brian(a)microcomaustralia.com.au>

1 0

Re: Virtualisation compatibility (was: Oracle and Linux)
by Peter Ross 05 Nov '14

05 Nov '14

From: "Toby Corkindale" <toby(a)dryft.net> > On 5 November 2014 12:42, Peter Ross <Petros.Listig(a)fdrive.com.au> wrote: >> I have to admit not really to understand the "support this or that >> virtualisation" >> >> A virtualisation presents a "virtual computer" and this may slightly >> differ depending on the virtualisation solution. >> >> But the same goes for physical machines. >> >> And I have not read: "Product XY only works on Dell T610 and HP ML 150". >> I >> can install it on a "no name box" as well. Why not on any VM? >> >> The ERP solution [not Oracle, btw] I am dealing with in-house runs on >> Tomcat. Tomcat and Java are designed to live "everywhere". >> >> Of course the software is certified on Linux X and Windows Y only.. > > So, in theory virtualisation should be roughly the same everywhere. > And something like the JVM is designed to work almost everywhere. > And usually it all works OK. > > However sometimes you get bizarre incompatibilities -- the one I'm > thinking of is OpenVZ and the JVM. > I don't know why, but the jvm just doesn't work right under OpenVZ -- > it's a well-known issue. > (And one which I believe points out that openvz has been flawed all > along; I wouldn't trust *anything* under it as a result) Oracle does not support containers, Avi pointed out. In short, containers and Jails are not full virtualisation. As an example, FreeBSD jails are having a problem with shared System V memory: jail(8) man page: https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=jail&sektion=8 allow.sysvipc A process within the jail has access to System V IPC primitives. In the current jail implementation, System V primitives share a single namespace across the host and jail environments, meaning that processes within a jail would be able to communicate with (and potentially interfere with) processes outside of the jail, and in other jails. Not that the default is 0(disabled): "Some restrictions of the jail environment may be set on a per- jail basis. With the exception of allow.set_hostname, these boolean parameters are off by default." If you really need to run multiple postgresql (e.g.) in various jails on the same box you can run them with different UIDs (and enabling SysV memory) but it makes security a "cooperative issue" - only recommended if you control host and jail environment yourself (e.g. not a good idea for web hosting) The handbook writes about jails: "Important: Jails are a powerful tool, but they are not a security panacea. While it is not possible for a jailed process to break out on its own, there are several ways in which an unprivileged user outside the jail can cooperate with a privileged user inside the jail to obtain elevated privileges in the host environment. Most of these attacks can be mitigated by ensuring that the jail root is not accessible to unprivileged users in the host environment. As a general rule, untrusted users with privileged access to a jail should not be given access to the host environment." I do not know this about OpenVZ (and in general Linux containers). The documentation about Linux containers is a bit vague in this regard (or I have not found the "ultimate answer" yet). One reason not to trust it that much. Here is one example about container issues mentioned (but not explained): http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/127001/linux-lxc-vs-freebsd-jail "There are some known security issues with LXC that can be mitigated using selinux, for example." I actually would like to know what the "known security issues" are.. Cheers Peter

2 1

Re: Oracle and Linux
by Peter Ross 05 Nov '14

05 Nov '14

Hi, From: "Avi Miller" <avi.miller(a)gmail.com> >> On 5 Nov 2014, at 12:42 pm, Peter Ross <Petros.Listig(a)fdrive.com.au> >> wrote: >> >> I have to admit not really to understand the "support this or that >> virtualisation" > > I misused some words and apologise: In the case of Oracle in particular, > there is a difference between "supported" and "certified" - we support > Oracle products on any platform to the best of our ability, but if we > can't reproduce the issue internally, we may need to engage the > HW/virtualisation vendor. Thanks for clarification. I think I did not differentiate the two words as well. >> And I have not read: "Product XY only works on Dell T610 and HP ML 150".I >> can install it on a "no name box" as well. Why not on any VM? > > We have hardware certification[1], just like we have virtualisation > certification. Oh, I did not know that. >> (BTW: Is Oracle DB supported in a Oracle VirtualBox?) > > Yes, for development and test purposes. Not for production use, AFAIK. > Then again, the performance you'd get in VirtualBox probably doesn't meet > your production needs anyway. That could be right. But I am actually not that sure how much it matters. As I was "toying" with Oracle VM I moved a Zimbra Server running on Ubuntu. From FreeBSD/VirtualBox to Oracle VM (Linux/Xen) I did not "feel" a difference. Maybe a benchmark question: Which benchmarks would you run to compare the two in various ways? If I have a bit time I like to try it. I find it difficult to compare them in "normal usage" if you do not migrate all VMs from one solution to another (on the same hardware) because the overall load of a system has an impact on a VM as well. I also tend to have a bit of "space" on the servers to avoid bottlenecks. Usually I do not over-allocate (sorry, there is a better word I just cannot remember just now) or at least not much. The space is also used as a buffer if I have to migrate VMs/services suddenly (e.g. caused by a failing machine) The result may differ on different hardware as well. E.g. I could imagine to have different results if I try the two stacks on a 32GB modern hardware - or on a 5 years old machine with 8 GB only. Depends where I find a bottleneck. > Hope that makes things a little clearer from our perspective. Yes it does:-) Thanks Peter

2 1

Virtualisation compatibility (was: Oracle and Linux)
by Toby Corkindale 05 Nov '14

05 Nov '14

On 5 November 2014 12:42, Peter Ross <Petros.Listig(a)fdrive.com.au> wrote: > I have to admit not really to understand the "support this or that > virtualisation" > > A virtualisation presents a "virtual computer" and this may slightly > differ depending on the virtualisation solution. > > But the same goes for physical machines. > > And I have not read: "Product XY only works on Dell T610 and HP ML 150". I > can install it on a "no name box" as well. Why not on any VM? > > The ERP solution [not Oracle, btw] I am dealing with in-house runs on > Tomcat. Tomcat and Java are designed to live "everywhere". > > Of course the software is certified on Linux X and Windows Y only.. So, in theory virtualisation should be roughly the same everywhere. And something like the JVM is designed to work almost everywhere. And usually it all works OK. However sometimes you get bizarre incompatibilities -- the one I'm thinking of is OpenVZ and the JVM. I don't know why, but the jvm just doesn't work right under OpenVZ -- it's a well-known issue. (And one which I believe points out that openvz has been flawed all along; I wouldn't trust *anything* under it as a result) Anyway, given such occurrences exist, I could see why software vendors might not approve of their stuff being run in certain VMs. If they've found it causes support headaches, they might just not want to go there any more. T

1 0

Re: Oracle and Linux
by Peter Ross 05 Nov '14

05 Nov '14

Hi Avi and all, From: "Avi Miller" <avi.miller(a)gmail.com> > We support most virtualization platforms including VMware, Hyper-V and > Oracle VM. We also support most operating systems. Certification has also > broaden to include RDBMS on Windows running on Hyper-V (with Oracle Linux > certification on Hyper-V in progress). I have to admit not really to understand the "support this or that virtualisation" A virtualisation presents a "virtual computer" and this may slightly differ depending on the virtualisation solution. But the same goes for physical machines. And I have not read: "Product XY only works on Dell T610 and HP ML 150". I can install it on a "no name box" as well. Why not on any VM? (BTW: Is Oracle DB supported in a Oracle VirtualBox?) The ERP solution [not Oracle, btw] I am dealing with in-house runs on Tomcat. Tomcat and Java are designed to live "everywhere". Of course the software is certified on Linux X and Windows Y only.. Practically I do not get any Linux support because "Windows is standard" downunder. So I'm told. Not to mention that I install an older version because the new one "is not launched in Australia yet". It's available in Europe since April.. In one case I spoke to technical support in Germany to get some clues and confirmation. They were helpful but contract issues prevent them from supporting me continuously. I could have installed it under FreeBSD I guess. Wouldn't make any difference, support-wise. Did I mention that I love proprietary software? ;-) Regards Peter

2 1

SUSE next version out within hours
by Mike 05 Nov '14

05 Nov '14

SUSE Linux next version is about to be released and my broadband allocation has plenty left to do this - but the SUSE release occurs just after the broadband expiration. So I will have to wait, with a large balance, until tomorrow - baah I am interested in this as SUSE has a different 'take' on what users want - some of my favourite utilities are hard to get and they are like torture to install - this was predictable - just bad timing. Mike

2 2