Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fedora Atomic tracking issue #200

Closed
3 of 7 tasks
dghubble opened this issue Apr 26, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed
3 of 7 tasks

Fedora Atomic tracking issue #200

dghubble opened this issue Apr 26, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

@dghubble
Copy link
Member

dghubble commented Apr 26, 2018

With the introduction of Fedora Atomic as alpha, there are several issues we'll track at a high level.

Notes:

  • bare-metal: Fedora Atomic can fail in dracut on bare-metal IBM systems if in-band IPMI over USB interface is enabled since it was preferred over NICs. Disabling was a work-around.
  • bare-metal: I've had considerable difficulty getting Fedora Atomic to install on some IBM systems. I've mostly ended up validating clusters on Supermicro. In short, if you're going to use Fedora Atomic, evaluate it on your hardware. Or just use Container Linux which is more mature/reliable.
  • bare-metal: Do not prepare the ostree repo on an older system (Fedora 25 in my case). Preparing the repo with rpm-ostree-2018.4-1.fc28.src.rpm solved the sysimage mount issue.
  • AWS: Use the default network_mtu rather than setting it to 8981 to take advantage of jumbo packets. The kernel regressed MTU detection recently. Container Linux has been patched (rel: Interface MTU change on AWS instances supporting Jumbo packets coreos/bugs#2443). Fedora has not.

You should NOT have any issues with log, exec, port-forward, or any addons. Recovery from control plane reboots and total cluster power cycles works correctly. Prometheus alerts should all be green as well. If you observe otherwise, please mention.

@dghubble dghubble changed the title Fedora Atomic alpha tracking issue Fedora Atomic tracking issue Apr 26, 2018
@dghubble
Copy link
Member Author

Fedora Atomic will be replaced by Fedora CoreOS, so I'm not planning to invest effort into pushing these modules beyond alpha. Their value lies in aiding the addition of Fedora CoreOS or in experimenting with ideas being developed in Atomic for inclusion in Fedora CoreOS.

@dghubble
Copy link
Member Author

Fedora Atomic 29 has been released, but I haven't seen it published to Digital Ocean.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant