[01:17] <rick_h> Catalys: no, I don't think so as it's not compatible on the machine to have both kvm and lxc related tools install (kernel bits)
[01:17] <rick_h> Catalys: can you change the config and add units and remove the old units?
[01:18] <Catalys> rick_h: I use conjure-up.io for deployment, do you know how to open the configuration window there (or juju).
[01:19] <rick_h> Catalys: type "juju config nova-compute" to get the config from it
[01:19] <rick_h> Catalys: so conjure-up is a great way to get the deploy setup and going. To modify it and run it longer term there's juju underneath so you can check things with "juju status" and change config with the config command and do things like "juju add-unit"
[01:20] <Catalys> rick_h: Oh I did juju config nova-compute virt-type=kvm which didn't seem to work. I guess I can try the units you've suggested though.
[01:20] <rick_h> Catalys: right, so it can't be changed on units already running
[01:21] <rick_h> Catalys: so the question is, if you juju add-unit nova-compute does it come up with the new config and come up as kvm?
[01:23] <Catalys> rick_h: If I just run "juju add-unit nova-comput" it gives me "ERROR No model in focus.".
[01:23] <Catalys> compute*
[01:24] <rick_h> Catalys: oh I see. We'll have to select what conjure-up setup.
[01:24] <rick_h> Catalys: "juju controllers"
[01:24] <rick_h> Catalys: and then "juju switch xxxxx"
[01:24] <rick_h> Catalys: and then you can see "juju models" and switch to the right model that conjure-up created
[01:25] <Catalys> Says no controllers registered but it suggests "Please either create a new controller using "juju bootstrap" or connect to another controller that you have been given access to using "juju register".
[01:25] <Catalys> rick_h: Do I use the bootstrap command or might that wipe it?
[01:26] <rick_h> Catalys: no, don't bootstrap. conjure-up had to do that for you. Is this on the same machine you ran conjure-up on?
[01:26] <Catalys> rick_h: Oh wait a minute lol.
[01:26] <Catalys> rick_h: I was logged in to the wrong user...
[01:27] <Catalys> rick_h: Alright so the add-unit command seems to have been run, but didn't return anything. Is that correct though?
[01:27] <rick_h> Catalys: right, now in juju status there should be a new unit of nova-compute coming up
[01:27] <Catalys> rick_h: Yup it's there as pending/
[01:36] <Catalys> rick_h: It seems to have been created with lxd and openvswitch. Should I pass a flag when I add-unit though?
[01:37] <rick_h> Catalys: no, it just means that the new one is checking with the leader and/or previous units when making the decision
[01:37] <rick_h> Catalys: I wasn't sure if it would be its own awesome unit or not
[01:37] <Catalys> It is another nova-compute/1 does that means it just takes the config from /0 or?
[01:38] <Catalys> rick_h: Would I delete the original one then?
[01:38] <rick_h> Catalys: so you typically set the config on the application and all the units respect that config
[01:39] <rick_h> Catalys: however, in this case, the units need to all behave the same or things like balancing vms across units of nova won't work well
[01:45] <Catalys> rick_h: Are you familiair with conjure-up since I want to move it to a MAAS environment, but not sure how many node's I need. It seems to be 4, will that mean 1 controller and 3 computing nodes, since that is the preferred too.
[01:47] <rick_h> Catalys: yea, looks like 3 for the openstack and 1 for the juju controller: https://docs.openstack.org/developer/charm-guide/getting-started.html


[05:42] <astroo-> Video: Woz explains how cloud computing is turning us into Soviet Russia   http://bgr.com/2013/06/14/steve-wozniak-interview-cloud-computing/
[05:45] <astroo->  White House: Obama will defend Internet spying to Europeans  http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/305637-white-house-obama-will-defend-nsa-internet-spying-to-european-allies
[06:04] <astroo-> ciao pessoal
[19:25] <astroo-> ola pessoal
[19:31] <optimusprimem> ola
[19:31] <astroo-> ola


[05:13] <rafaeldtinoco> hello kernel team, is there any ETA of the linux-hwe-5.11 unsigned kernels ddebs issue ? I can't generate BTF (https://github.com/aquasecurity/btfhub/issues/5) files for Ubuntu Focal HWE kernels currently. This is the only way we are able to make eBPF backwards compatible to Bionic and Focal (https://github.com/aquasecurity/btfhub/tree/main/tools) while LP: #1926330 isn't dealt with (unfortunately).