server December 2024

server@lists.fedoraproject.org

12 participants
15 discussions

HTTP Apache Web Server issue and bug unprocessed report
by Peter Boy 12 Jan '25

12 Jan '25

Hi folks, We have a serious issue with the current Apache httpd package, which is an indispensable service for a server these days. The issue is basically the default configuration as provided by the package: - if you create just one server in den .conf directory, it results in a non-functional https configuration - the configuration uses items, that are deprecated since version 2.4 - the default layout of the default configuration is currently not suitable I wrote a bug report about it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258121 Unfortunately we are experiencing a common Fedora problem, nobody responds to it and the bug reports are left unprocessed and pile up. And because none of the maintainers respond at all, we have now also missed all the deadlines for improving something for f40. Technically an improvement is more than simple. It’s just a change in the configuration files, as far as I see. Any idea how to proceed with this? - Would someone take the bug report and check my analyses? - Is there any way to bring this forward? - Should we create a new https-server package which takes the binaries and provides an alternative configuration? Probably similar to default-editor-vim / default-editor-nano? As it currently stands, we are in no way competitive with, for example, Debian or ArchLinux. -- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy(a)fedoraproject.org Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2) Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast

4 8

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Server WG
by pboy＠fedoraproject.org 25 Dec '24

25 Dec '24

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Server WG on 2024-12-25 from 19:00:00 to 20:00:00 Europe/Berlin At fedora-meeting(a)irc.libera.chat The meeting will be about: Standing meeting of the Fedora Server Edition Working Group More information available at: [https://pagure.io/fedora-server/report/Meeting](https://pagure.io/fedora-se… Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/10874/

2 1

Use cases for file sharing using Fedora Server
by John W. Himpel 24 Dec '24

24 Dec '24

The Fedora Server WG is trying to create ansible roles for the client and server portions of NFS file sharing. I have created ansible roles that work fine if the userid associated with the UID & GID of the files on the server matchs the user associated with the UID & GID of the files on the client. i.e. USERA (UID=1006 GID=1006) on the server matches USERA (UID=1006 GID=1006) on the client. However if USERB (UID=1007 GID=1007) on the server tries to serve files to USERB (UID=1008 GID=1008) on the client, things deteriorate quickly due to the UID and/or GID mismatch. The best and cleanest solution is to use NIS or LDAP or some other database to keep the UID & GID in sync between the server and it's clients. This is a reasonable solution in a large scale (i.e. datacenter) environment, but in my opinion is not a reasonable solution in a home lab or Small Office / Home Office environment. Another alternative might be to instead use CIFS or Samba for file sharing. Since I am at a crossroads as to which approach to take, I thought I would ask for some feedback. 1) Is is reasonable/unreasonable to assume LDP/NIS/etc is suitable for home lab / Small Office / Home Office type environments. 2) Is is reasonable/unreasonable to assume Fedora Server has a place in the datacenter environment? 3) What would be your solution to keep userid/UID/GID in sync across different hosts? Thanks.

4 8

My apology for missing todays SG meeting
by John W. Himpel 19 Dec '24

19 Dec '24

I have an ongoing battle with bronchitis and pneumonia. This morning I took the Dr. prescribed meds. Some of the side-effects are drowsiness. Shortly after taking the meds, I fell asleep for several hours. When I woke up, the meeting was over. I am glad the NFS/Ansible issue was discussed during the meetings. In a separate email on this M/L, I have added my input. I think the discussion has been quite productive. My thanks to all who have participated. I'd like to take a swing at what I perceive as a possible mis-conception that has often been expressed on the M/L. Certainly Raspberry Pi 4 (in all of it's incantations) is/was not powerful enough to do very much useful work (from a server point of view). But I have purchased a couple of Raspberry Pi 5 machines with 8GB of memory, 1Gb Ethernet and m.2 storage. While it does not have the power of an N100 Intel server, it consumes much power, gives off much less heat and is usually much quieter. If one is willing to spend the time and effort, I am sure one can find other SBC computers with better technical specs that can outperform the RPi 5. But market share is important. For those of a certain age, one can recall that Betamax was technically superior to VHS. But the vastly larger VHS market share won out. There certainly are circumstances where RPi 5 is not the best solution to a problem. In that case, go with the best solution (if that solution provides a measurable benefit). But market share, financial stability of the vendor, reliable long-term support, and 3rd party hardware/software addons will make Raspberry Pi 5 a choice for many in our target audience. The most recent kernel supposedly will support most everything needed for use of the RPi 5 as a headless server. I believe the Fedora currently used an O/S loader that many of the other distributions do not use. According to emails on the Fedora ARM M/L, that is because Fedora ARM server is aimed at being compatible with enterprise level server usage. Fedora is already 12 months or so behind Debian/Ubuntu in being able to boot up RPi 5. I realize their restrictions on non-redistributable software is more strict than Fedora's, thus their shorter time to market. I would like to call upon the WG to be more vocal in advocating for RedHat resources assigned to providing the necessary missing bits for a completely free and redistributable RPI 5 distribution. I would hate to see Fedora fall even further behind is the consumer market. Much of the younger set of users could be enticed to support open source products on SBCs for real work and for self-educational purposes, but not unless we have product they can use.

2 1

Agenda Items on 2024-12-18 18:00 ==UTC== meeting
by Peter Boy Uni 18 Dec '24

18 Dec '24

The upcoming meeting will be held on ========================================================================== Fedora Server MATRIX meeting Wednesday, Dec 18 18:00 ==UTC== https://matrix.to/#/#meeting:fedoraproject.org?web-instance[element.io]=cha… ========================================================================== Please, check your local time using date -d '2024-12-18 18:00UTC' ==== Agenda ==== #link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/report/Meeting To be able to discuss all topics on the agenda and to prevent us from repeatedly putting off topics that have not been dealt with, we should set time limits for the individual items on the agenda. If we need more time, we should continue on the mailing list. To recap our discussion on last meeting see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/server-working-group/wg-minutes-2024/ === 1. Follow up actions and announcements === === 2. Server user poll !link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/145 about 30 mins max - our main topic today Review of the current state === 3. Ansible assisted installation and configuration of NFS service !link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/138 15 mins max See also: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.or… === 4. Revisiting Fedora Server quality criteria and procedures link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/63 Open discussion. === 5. Open Floor For any additions or changes, please reply to this email. For an overview about current tasks look at: https://pagure.io/fedora-server/boards/Works%20in%20progress ===== Pending Topics for Follow-Up Meetings ===== === Using Ansible to install and configure Wildfly !link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/60 === Fedora Server in a virtualized runtime environment === link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/110 === Work program and goals No ticket yet. Previous discussions: #link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/102 #link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/101 — Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy(a)fedoraproject.org Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2) Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast

1 0

Fedora Server User Survey - Draft for Fedora Magazine Article
by mowest＠vivaldi.net 18 Dec '24

18 Dec '24

I was tasked with drafting an article for our Fedora Server User Survey that would be published in Fedora Magazine the same day our survey goes live to the world. Below is my draft in markdown. I had a couple of goals: 1. Keep it short, attention spans are short so it is 170 words including the title. 2. Have the link for the survey twice in the article once at the beginning and once at the end so no one would have to scroll to click on a link to the survey. Please respond with your comments or possible edits. # Fedora Server User Survey: Your Cattle or Your Pets Do you use Fedora Server? The Fedora Server Working Group would love to hear from you through our [short 10 question survey](https://fedoraproject.limequery.com/fedora-server-f41). Your answers will help us focus our time and efforts to improve Fedora Server. Perhaps you like to spin up multiple instances of Fedora Server for short clustered workloads treating Fedora Server like an unnamed heard of cattle. You might instead carefully name your Fedora Servers in your home lab after ships from Star Trek or droids from Star Wars treating Fedora Server like beloved family pets. No matter how you use Fedora Server, we would love to hear from you. We hope to learn... 1. Where Fedora Server is being deployed? 2. What are the common use cases for Fedora Server? 3. What improvements can we make in default packages, documentation, or services for our community? Go [HERE](https://fedoraproject.limequery.com/fedora-server-f41) to take the 10 question survey. The Fedora Server Working Group appreciates your time and interest in Fedora Server. --------- mowest --------- discoverfoss.com

2 1

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Server WG
by pboy＠fedoraproject.org 17 Dec '24

17 Dec '24

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Server WG on 2024-12-18 from 19:00:00 to 20:00:00 Europe/Berlin At fedora-meeting(a)irc.libera.chat The meeting will be about: Standing meeting of the Fedora Server Edition Working Group More information available at: [https://pagure.io/fedora-server/report/Meeting](https://pagure.io/fedora-se… Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/10874/

1 0

Mismatch of GID/UID & Permissions using nfsv4
by John W. Himpel 13 Dec '24

13 Dec '24

I am running nfsv4 on the client and the server. User A on the server has GID/UID of 1000. User A on the client has GID/UID of 1001. User B on the client has GID/UID of 1000. When I mount a directory on the client from the server, the GID/UID is 1000 on the client and server. However GID/UID of 1000 has different userids on the client and the server. The target audience is Small Office/Home Office and/or Home Lab. Thus use of Idm or ldap is not a preferred solution to keep the userids in sync with the UID/GID mappiing. I thought IDMAPD was supposed to resolve this issue. It does indeed correct the userid mismatch, but it does not resolve the GID/UID and permissions issues. Any suggestions on how to proceed would be greatly appreciated.

1 0

Proposal: Changes to Fedora Server default partitioning scheme
by Stephen Gallagher 13 Dec '24

13 Dec '24

The following proposal comes out of the discussion at this weeks Server SIG meeting[1] Fedora Server will have: * / (root) will be a minimum of 2 GiB and a maximum of 15 GiB * SWAP will continue to be calculated automatically based on available RAM on the system * All unused space will be assigned to a volume group and available to be assigned to new partitions or extend existing partitions. * Anaconda will continue to handle the appropriate EFI and /boot settings We also discussed during the meeting whether we should have a separate /var partition by default, but the general sense was that we might be better served by developing a mechanism to allow partitions to be split from existing mount points, which would be more flexible going forward. As we did not have quorum in the meeting by the point we got to this proposal, I'm taking it to the list for discussion and votes. For the record, the current behavior of the partitioning scheme is for / to be given up to 50 GiB of space and then any remaining space after that is assigned to a separate /home partition. [1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-03-15/serversig.201…

4 8

Agenda Items on 2024-12-11 18:00 ==UTC== meeting
by Peter Boy Uni 11 Dec '24

11 Dec '24

The upcoming meeting will be held on ========================================================================== Fedora Server MATRIX meeting Wednesday, Dec 11 18:00 ==UTC== https://matrix.to/#/#meeting:fedoraproject.org?web-instance[element.io]=cha… ========================================================================== Please, check your local time using date -d '2024-12-11 18:00UTC' ==== Agenda ==== #link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/report/Meeting To be able to discuss all topics on the agenda and to prevent us from repeatedly putting off topics that have not been dealt with, we should set time limits for the individual items on the agenda. If we need more time, we should continue on the mailing list. To recap our discussion on last meeting see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/server-working-group/wg-minutes-2024/ === 1. Follow up actions and announcements === === 2. Server user poll !link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/145 about 30 mins max - our main topic today Review of the current state === 3. Cockpit boot message !link https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/server@lists.fedoraproject.or… about 10 mins max Review of the current state === 4. Ansible assisted installation and configuration of NFS service !link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/138 15 mins max === 4. Work program and goals No Issue yet Open discussion. === 5. Open Floor For any additions or changes, please reply to this email. For an overview about current tasks look at: https://pagure.io/fedora-server/boards/Works%20in%20progress ===== Pending Topics for Follow-Up Meetings ===== === Using Ansible to install and configure Wildfly !link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/60 === Fedora Server in a virtualized runtime environment === link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/110 === Revisiting Fedora Server quality criteria and procedures link https://pagure.io/fedora-server/issue/63 -- Peter Boy https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy PBoy(a)fedoraproject.org Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2) Fedora Server Edition Working Group member Fedora Docs team contributor and board member Java developer and enthusiast

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

server December 2024