Preventing resume immediately after suspend on Dell Latitude 5580 (Debian testing)

I’ve installed Debian buster (testing at the time of writing) on a new Dell Latitude 5580 laptop, and one annoyance I’ve found is that the laptop would almost always resume as soon as it was suspended.

AFAIU, it seems the culprit is the network card (Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation Ethernet Connection (4) I219-LM) which would be configured with Wake-On-Lan (wol) set to the “magic packet” mode (ethtool enp0s31f6 | grep Wake-on would return ‘g’). One hint is that grep enabled /proc/acpi/wakeup returns GLAN.

There are many ways to change that for the rest of the session with a command like ethtool -s enp0s31f6 wol d.

But I had a hard time figuring out if there was a preferred way to make this persistant among the many hits in so many tutorials and forum posts.

My best hit so far is to add the a file named /etc/systemd/network/50-eth0.link containing :

[Match]
 Driver=e1000e

[Link]
 WakeOnLan=off

The driver can be found by checking udev settings as reported by udevadm info -a /sys/class/net/enp0s31f6

There are other ways to do that with systemd, but so far it seems to be working for me. Hth,

Making Debian stable/jessie images for OpenStack with bootstrap-vz and cloud-init

I’m investigating the creation of VM images for different virtualisation solutions.

Among the target platforms is a destop as a service platform based on an OpenStack public cloud.

We’ve been working with bootstrap-vz for creating VMs for Vagrant+VirtualBox so I wanted to test its use for OpenStack.

There are already pre-made images available, including official Debian ones, but I like to be able to re-create things instead of depending on some external magic (which also means to be able to optimize, customize and avoid potential MitM, of course).

It appears that bootstrap-vz can be used with cloud-init provided that some bits of config are specified.

In particular the cloud_init plugin of bootstrap-vz requires a metadata_source set to “NoCloud, ConfigDrive, OpenStack, Ec2“. Note we explicitely spell it ‘OpenStack‘ and not ‘Openstack‘ as was mistakenly done in the default Debian cloud images (see https://bugs.debian.org/854482).

The following snippet of manifest provides the necessary bits :

---
name: debian-{system.release}-{system.architecture}-{%Y}{%m}{%d}
provider:
  name: kvm
  virtio_modules:
  - virtio_pci
  - virtio_blk
bootstrapper:
  workspace: /target
  # create or reuse a tarball of packages
  tarball: true
system:
  release: jessie
  architecture: amd64
  bootloader: grub
  charmap: UTF-8
  locale: en_US
  timezone: UTC
volume:
  backing: raw
  partitions:
    #type: gpt
    type: msdos
    root:
      filesystem: ext4
      size: 4GiB
    swap:
      size: 512MiB
packages:
  # change if another mirror is closer
  mirror: http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian/
plugins:
  root_password:
    password: whatever
  cloud_init:
    username: debian
    # Note we explicitely spell it 'OpenStack' and not 'Openstack' as done in the default Debian cloud images (see https://bugs.debian.org/854482)
    metadata_sources: NoCloud, ConfigDrive, OpenStack, Ec2
  # admin_user:
  #   username: Administrator
  #   password: Whatever
  minimize_size:
    # reduce the size by around 250 Mb
    zerofree: true

I’ve tested this with the bootstrap-vz version in stretch/testing (0.9.10+20170110git-1) for creating jessie/stable image, which were booted on the OVH OpenStack public cloud. YMMV.

Hope this helps

Présentation du projet Debian par Nicolas Dandrimont lors de la Debian release party de Jessie

Nicolas (olasd) Dandrimont est venu présenter le projet Debian à Télécom SudParis lundi 18 mai 2015, pour la petite fête de sortie de la version majeure “Jessie” que nous avions organisé avec MiNET.

Les transparents de Nicolas sont disponibles sur son site.

Updated : Voici l’enregistrement de la conférence sur YouTube :

Merci aux membres de MiNET qui ont joyeusement participé à cette petite fête.

Voici quelques photos :




Vous pouvez aussi revisionner l’enregistrement de la conférence de Stefano il y a 4 ans.

Avec MiNET, première Debian release party française de Jessie le 18 mai à Télécom SudParis

Vous étiez frustrés de ne pas pouvoir fêter Jessie en France dignement ?

On a pensé à vous, avec MiNET.

Le 18 mai entre 17h et 18h30, nous fêterons ça à Évry (Essonne) à Télécom SudParis, avec la participation de Nicolas Dandrimont en guest star, pour présenter le projet.

Attention, inscription gratuite par avance en contactant les organisateurs, compte-tenu des contraintes de sécurité pour l’accès au site (vigipirate).

Plus de détails sur : https://wiki.debian.org/ReleasePartyJessie/France/Évry

New short paper : “Designing a virtual laboratory for a relational database MOOC” with Vagrant, Debian, etc.

Here’s a short preview of our latest accepted paper (to appear at CSEDU 2015), about the construction of VMs for the Relational Database MOOC using Vagrant, Debian, PostgreSQL (previous post), etc. :

Designing a virtual laboratory for a relational database MOOC

Olivier Berger, J Paul Gibson, Claire Lecocq and Christian Bac

Keywords: Remote Learning, Virtualization, Open Education Resources, MOOC, Vagrant

Abstract: Technical advances in machine and system virtualization are creating opportunities for remote learning to provide significantly better support for active education approaches. Students now, in general, have personal computers that are powerful enough to support virtualization of operating systems and networks. As a conse- quence, it is now possible to provide remote learners with a common, standard, virtual laboratory and learning environment, independent of the different types of physical machines on which they work. This greatly enhances the opportunity for producing re-usable teaching materials that are actually re-used. However, configuring and installing such virtual laboratories is technically challenging for teachers and students. We report on our experience of building a virtual machine (VM) laboratory for a MOOC on relational databases. The architecture of our virtual machine is described in detail, and we evaluate the benefits of using the Vagrant tool for building and delivering the VM.

TOC :

  • Introduction
    • A brief history of distance learning
    • Virtualization : the challenges
    • The design problem
  • The virtualization requirements
    • Scenario-based requirements
    • Related work on requirements
    • Scalability of existing approaches
  • The MOOC laboratory
    • Exercises and lab tools
    • From requirements to design
  • Making the VM as a Vagrant box
    • Portability issues
    • Delivery through Internet
    • Security
    • Availability of the box sources
  • Validation
    • Reliability Issues with VirtualBox
    • Student feedback and evaluation
  • Future work
    • Laboratory monitoring
    • More modular VMs
  • Conclusions

Bibliography

  • Alario-Hoyos et al., 2014
    Alario-Hoyos, C., Pérez-Sanagustın, M., Kloos, C. D., and Muñoz Merino, P. J. (2014).
    Recommendations for the design and deployment of MOOCs: Insights about the MOOC digital education of the future deployed in MiríadaX.
    In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality, TEEM ’14, pages 403-408, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  • Armbrust et al., 2010
    Armbrust, M., Fox, A., Griffith, R., Joseph, A. D., Katz, R., Konwinski, A., Lee, G., Patterson, D., Rabkin, A., Stoica, I., and Zaharia, M. (2010).
    A view of cloud computing.
    Commun. ACM, 53:50-58.
  • Billingsley and Steel, 2014
    Billingsley, W. and Steel, J. R. (2014).
    Towards a supercollaborative software engineering MOOC.
    In Companion Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 283-286. ACM.
  • Brown and Duguid, 1996
    Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1996).
    Universities in the digital age.
    Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 28(4):11-19.
  • Bullers et al., 2006
    Bullers, Jr., W. I., Burd, S., and Seazzu, A. F. (2006).
    Virtual machines – an idea whose time has returned: Application to network, security, and database courses.
    SIGCSE Bull., 38(1):102-106.
  • Chen and Noble, 2001
    Chen, P. M. and Noble, B. D. (2001).
    When virtual is better than real [operating system relocation to virtual machines].
    In Hot Topics in Operating Systems, 2001. Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop on, pages 133-138. IEEE.
  • Cooper, 2005
    Cooper, M. (2005).
    Remote laboratories in teaching and learning-issues impinging on widespread adoption in science and engineering education.
    International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 1(1).
  • Cormier, 2014
    Cormier, D. (2014).
    Rhizo14-the MOOC that community built.
    INNOQUAL-International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning, 2(3).
  • Dougiamas and Taylor, 2003
    Dougiamas, M. and Taylor, P. (2003).
    Moodle: Using learning communities to create an open source course management system.
    In World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications, pages 171-178.
  • Gomes and Bogosyan, 2009
    Gomes, L. and Bogosyan, S. (2009).
    Current trends in remote laboratories.
    Industrial Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, 56(12):4744-4756.
  • Hashimoto, 2013
    Hashimoto, M. (2013).
    Vagrant: Up and Running.
    O’Reilly Media, Inc.
  • Jones and Winne, 2012
    Jones, M. and Winne, P. H. (2012).
    Adaptive Learning Environments: Foundations and Frontiers.
    Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 1st edition.
  • Lowe, 2014
    Lowe, D. (2014).
    MOOLs: Massive open online laboratories: An analysis of scale and feasibility.
    In Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation (REV), 2014 11th International Conference on, pages 1-6. IEEE.
  • Ma and Nickerson, 2006
    Ma, J. and Nickerson, J. V. (2006).
    Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review.
    ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 38(3):7.
  • Pearson, 2013
    Pearson, S. (2013).
    Privacy, security and trust in cloud computing.
    In Privacy and Security for Cloud Computing, pages 3-42. Springer.
  • Prince, 2004
    Prince, M. (2004).
    Does active learning work? A review of the research.
    Journal of engineering education, 93(3):223-231.
  • Romero-Zaldivar et al., 2012
    Romero-Zaldivar, V.-A., Pardo, A., Burgos, D., and Delgado Kloos, C. (2012).
    Monitoring student progress using virtual appliances: A case study.
    Computers & Education, 58(4):1058-1067.
  • Sumner, 2000
    Sumner, J. (2000).
    Serving the system: A critical history of distance education.
    Open learning, 15(3):267-285.
  • Watson, 2008
    Watson, J. (2008).
    Virtualbox: Bits and bytes masquerading as machines.
    Linux J., 2008(166).
  • Winckles et al., 2011
    Winckles, A., Spasova, K., and Rowsell, T. (2011).
    Remote laboratories and reusable learning objects in a distance learning context.
    Networks, 14:43-55.
  • Yeung et al., 2010
    Yeung, H., Lowe, D. B., and Murray, S. (2010).
    Interoperability of remote laboratories systems.
    iJOE, 6(S1):71-80.