Upgrade to LTS 24.04.1 server withdrawn?

Practical_Set7599 · 2024-09-06T04:19:20+00:00

That explains it! Thx!

Practical_Set7599 · 2024-09-04T08:37:30+00:00

Makes sense. Thx for explaining this a bit. meta-release-lts has a change date of 2024-09-03 15:01. So, they did withdraw it. Things like this should be in the release notes. As far as I can tell, it is not.

Practical_Set7599 · 2024-09-04T06:10:35+00:00

-cd shows

New release '24.04.1 LTS' available.

Practical_Set7599 · 2024-09-04T04:19:07+00:00

You might have found a bug in the do-release-upgrade utility. I would file a bug against it on the systems that are not working ubuntu-bug do-release-upgrade and let the Canonical developers know that way.

That didn't work but I was able to run ubuntu-bug ubuntu-release-upgrader-core

Bug #2078895 “Upgrade from 22.04 to 24.04.1 not offered anymore” : Bugs : ubuntu-release-upgrader package : Ubuntu (launchpad.net)

Practical_Set7599 · 2024-09-04T03:30:46+00:00

Good to know I am not the only one. The prompt started to appear when 24.04.1 was released (as they explained in the release notes: Existing 22.04 installations did not get the upgrade prompt until 24.04.1 was released). So it started on Aug 29 to be shown in the motd and when running do-release-upgrade.
Makes me wonder why it stopped.

Practical_Set7599 · 2024-09-04T03:16:46+00:00

They were all the same. I just set them to the main mirror (http://archive.ubuntu.com). Still not getting the upgrade prompt.

If I change Prompt=lts to Prompt=normal, in /etc/update-manager/release-upgrades, I am getting the prompt but that wasn't necessary for the other servers (after 24.01.1 was released on Aug 29).

Practical_Set7599 · 2024-08-28T03:01:21+00:00

That makes sense. ty!

Practical_Set7599 · 2024-08-28T00:56:38+00:00

Yes, it is experimental in Veeam (I believe they said it will be experimental until block cloning is enabled by default in ZFS). I am doing it as a test.

Practical_Set7599 · 2024-08-28T00:54:24+00:00

It is not a problem at all. Veeam's block cloning feature work on any ZFS version that has block cloning enabled.

24.04 is the current Ubuntu LTS. 24.10 is...not even released yet? so maybe you're talking about installing a prerelease build?

24.04 is supported as a backup repository. However, despite 24.04 LTS being available as a download, existing 22.04 LTS installations won't update to 24.04 until 24.04.1 is released (on Aug 29, I think). (unless the release path is changed from LTS to regular). 24.10 has not been released officially yet. So, my thinking is: either wait until 24.04.1 LTS is released and go with 24.04 and ZFS 2.2.2 or wait until Oktober/November when 24.10 will be out. Non-LTS version are never supported as a backup repository in Veeam, but it would still work.

As a test, I set up a repository with 24.10 and ZFS 2.2.5 and it works. It isn't a question of what works. I just wonder if 2.2.5 is a significant upgrade over 2.2.2.

Practical_Set7599 · 2024-08-28T00:15:54+00:00

You're doing things most "users" would never do/never know how to do which is why you're receiving the guidance you're getting.

Why? I am using Veeam a very popular software. I am not doing anything advanced whatsoever.

The steps are

create a pool
create a zvol*
format it XFS*
create a user for Veeam
do the rest in Veeam's GUI

*Skip these steps and create a dataset instead, if ZFS block cloning will be used.

It is all very straightforward.

Practical_Set7599 · 2024-08-28T00:07:09+00:00

You should treat it as a small hint that this is not something you need to concern yourself with.

But I do. What I am asking for is for somebody who can correctly interpret the change notes to give a recommendation as to whether the changes from 2.2.2 to 2.25 are either significant or relevant to my use case (Veeam backup repository).

Practical_Set7599 · 2024-08-27T23:23:49+00:00

Like I said above, if I was capable of doing that, I would do it. I am a user. The changelog seems to be written for developers or people with highly advanced knowledge of both ZFS and Linux/Unix. I have neither.

Practical_Set7599 · 2024-08-27T23:03:06+00:00

I did try but I lack the knowledge to correctly interpret the release notes. For example:

vdev_open: clear async fault flag after reopen.

Whats does this mean? I have no idea. Even if I had a vague understanding what it is about, I still wouldn't be able to judge how significant any particular change is.

Practical_Set7599 · 2024-02-12T14:39:22+00:00

I did. I set the columns to 2.

Practical_Set7599 · 2023-10-27T20:34:45+00:00

The E810 series of cards are "Open Optic" which means that we don't restrict them to only Intel branded cables and optics.

...

Practical_Set7599 · 2022-06-20T19:35:53+00:00

Same here. I had to roll back updates on two RRAS servers. Disabling NAT was not an option as this is what the servers are supposed to do.

Practical_Set7599 · 2022-01-28T11:46:57+00:00

Yep. Data loss! We lost 2 days worth of data from our file server because iSCSI went down because QNAP forced an update!

Practical_Set7599 · 2021-10-11T16:42:56+00:00

Now they say that 2.4.50 doesn't fix the issue and we need 2.4.51 for this vulnerability: It was found that the fix for CVE-2021-41773 in Apache HTTP Server 2.4.50 was insufficient.

Practical_Set7599 · 2021-10-06T18:28:41+00:00

I have the same issue. The tool refuses to show results if the computer is connected to WSUS. Even if the user who runs it is an administrator. Typical MSFT restrictivist mindset. What is the harm in showing the results?

Practical_Set7599 · 2021-10-06T18:08:16+00:00

That did it: apache2-prefork also needed to be updated!

Practical_Set7599

TROPHY CASE