Dusty Mabe

Some of the [historical discussion](https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/476#issuecomment-651031010) about azure vs azurestack support in Fedora CoreOS could be useful here.

hmm. we try to limit the amount of data used by telling OSBuild a size for its cache: https://github.com/coreos/coreos-assembler/blob/dcce259d79d37478a91b3e2c2919dc3103c55e65/src/runvm-osbuild#L134 If the GC there wasn't working you wouldn't be able to...

Hey @mtalexan I've read over things here briefly. Obviously for FCOS and RHCOS we don't generate images that large so we never hit the limitation you are running into ->...

From https://github.com/coreos/rhel-coreos-config/issues/89#issuecomment-3489542729 > Both ostree.sync and kdump.crash.nfs need to bind port 2049 to the host, if they are running at the same time, one will be failed with listen tcp...

hmm. not sure. When I do the same thing I get: ``` [dustymabe@media fcos]$ cosa kola run --parallel=2 ostree.sync kdump.crash.nfs COREOS_ASSEMBLER_CONTAINER_RUNTIME_ARGS=-v /var/b/shared/code/github.com/coreos/coreos-assembler//bin/:/usr/local/bin/:ro -v /var/b/shared/code/github.com/coreos/coreos-assembler/:/src/:rw COSA_BUILD_WITH_BUILDAH=1 COREOS_ASSEMBLER_GIT=/var/b/shared/code/github.com/coreos/coreos-assembler/ COREOS_ASSEMBLER_CONFIG_GIT=/var/b/shared/code/github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/ COREOS_ASSEMBLER_CONTAINER_NAME=cosafcos + podman...

> In this case, should be make sure these 2 in the same bucket that would avoid to run parallelly? It would take some internal work in kola, which might...

> This looks sane, maybe can add this in cosa in longer term. Yeah. The other option here is to have something like; ``` Locks: ["HostPort=2049"] ``` and then have...

ok. I've review the first few commits but the last two I think I'm going to need to clear my head for. I'm thinking about this in totality with how...

> the DNF5 issue [1] > [1] https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/issues/1673 reading the history in that issue it seems to me like they never really got a good reproducer for the issue. It...

> > the DNF5 issue [1] > > [1] [rpm-software-management/dnf5#1673](https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/issues/1673) > > reading the history in that issue it seems to me like they never really got a good reproducer...