[11:21:03] hmm apparently puppet doesn't run on our puppet compilers since Nov 19th, is that expected/known jbond42? [11:22:03] vgutierrez: both of them? [11:22:07] ouch anyway! [11:22:11] the three of them actually [11:22:25] j.bond is supposed to be on holiday, but might be around later, not sure [11:22:59] I don't recall, but if I have to bet looking at IRC logs either for this channel or -operations might have some insight [11:50:20] vgutierrez: definetly not expected https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/operations/puppet/+/564617 should fix it if i can get a review from someone [12:03:26] jbond42: thx <3 [14:17:26] ^ that's the best time to +2/merge a change! [14:20:33] hmm too late, right? ;P [15:41:45] <_joe_> vgutierrez: I just found a host for which there are three checks defined *right now* in lvs::configuration [15:41:48] We've already awarded the deploy-prod-from-an-internaional-ferry medal, it doesn't need a second recipient please. [15:41:56] _joe_: /o\ [15:42:11] <_joe_> vgutierrez: and ofc only one shows up [15:42:18] of course :) [16:01:09] <_joe_> aaand another with 3 all on https [16:01:16] <_joe_> now which one is actually monitored? [16:01:24] the last one? [16:02:36] <_joe_> search-psi-https is the winner right now [16:02:59] _joe_: search has 3 cluster on different ports [16:03:03] standard, psi and omega [16:03:10] they are 3 independent ones [16:03:22] <_joe_> volans: thanks, I'm aware [16:03:36] <_joe_> I was looking at which one is actually being monitored [16:03:43] so I'm not getting why we need to remove monitors [16:03:51] ahh you were checking which one is actually monitored [16:03:54] because of overload [16:03:57] <_joe_> no [16:03:57] sorry, misunderstood [16:04:08] <_joe_> because of the way we build the lvs icinga data [16:04:15] <_joe_> I'm going to fix this pretty soon [16:04:18] k [16:07:12] * cdanis just made some changes to puppet-merge; expected no-op aside from cleanups but please lmk if you have issues [17:10:30] just closing the loop on the compilers; puppet is running fine on them now [17:13:48] thx [18:03:48] vgutierrez: didn't you work on something like https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/564729 before? [18:04:10] I remember discussing what ended up being https://salsa.debian.org/vgutierrez-guest/debian-installer-utils/commit/5036e2443212e97e61c205872cc4bf1dac09f6ca with you, but I don't recall all the details [18:04:14] Cc: moritzm :) [18:04:50] hmmm so I didn't suffer the 01- issue that marostegui suffered here cause I was using "ipappend 2" [18:05:43] and we didn't set for adding "ipappend 2" on the general case due to that bug you mentioned [18:05:51] IIRC :) [18:59:54] the patch merged via https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=921444 is just cosmetical? but without BOOTIF/ipappend the dual NIC systems don't even install [19:29:24] "Aren't we checking the link status anyway?" [19:29:27] I was also curious about that [19:40:07] applying ferm change to installservers..but should be noop and double-checking [20:06:33] cdanis: it should, but there's a (longstanding) bug: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=700292