We're now ready for round 2 of Virtual Machine creation on our hardware.
osgeo3
Name Web
Cores 2
Ram 4
HD+Swap 32+4=36
DRBD Yes (so 72 GB total)
osgeo4
Name Qgis
Cores 2
Ram 4
HD+Swap 50+[4]=54
DRBD No
Name Webextra
Cores 2
RAM 4
HD+Swap 20+[4]=24
DRBD No
How's the backend access for VM management coming?
Could you also give me a readout from each Host of how much total disk
space we had to start with. I just want to keep track of how much we
have left to work with.
Alex,
in an earlier mail you said: "Please fill out an entry in the table with
the hard drive requirements for such a VM."
The GRASS and Mapbender projects did that. We also created a ticket for
SAC with the request for a dedicated machine [1] and I just added a
comment to better explain what this instance is supposed to be used for.
It is intended to become part of the stable publicly visible OSGeo web
infrastructure and uses the LDAP authentication.
After your first mail - but not directly referring to either Markus' or
my request you said: "The general idea had been that a few heavily
impacted projects would get their own and everyone else would be grouped
into generic Project VMs."
Can you explain what criteria qualify a project to "get their own" or
what "grouped into generic Project VMs" exactly means? We do not mind to
share any resources as long as they are responsive and not impacted by
outages as this will not do for publicly visible services. As can be
seen in the table the needed resources are pretty low key but to me this
does not translate into low priority.
We're now ready for round 2 of Virtual Machine creation on our hardware.
osgeo3
Name Web
Cores 2
Ram 4
HD+Swap 32+4=36
DRBD Yes (so 72 GB total)
osgeo4
Name Qgis
Cores 2
Ram 4
HD+Swap 50+[4]=54
DRBD No
Name Webextra
Cores 2
RAM 4
HD+Swap 20+[4]=24
DRBD No
How's the backend access for VM management coming?
Could you also give me a readout from each Host of how much total disk
space we had to start with. I just want to keep track of how much we
have left to work with.
Exploring Space, Time and Mind http://arnulf.us
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
On May 12, 2010, at 4:18 AM, Seven (aka Arnulf) wrote:
Can you explain what criteria qualify a project to "get their own" or
what "grouped into generic Project VMs" exactly means?
My opinion is the answer to this is "after a project has demonstrated that it is consuming enough resources of a shared instance to warrant its own". A big challenge with each project getting its own instance is the fact that users each instance most likely do not totally consume the resources, and we end up partitioning a lot of resources and having highly variable utilization. We don't want to get into the position where we have 10 VMs doing basically nothing and 1 that is completely saturated no room to grow.
Another challenge with lots and lots of VMs is that the creation and maintenance of each one increases our administrative overhead cost.
We do not mind to
share any resources as long as they are responsive and not impacted by
outages as this will not do for publicly visible services.
The "contract" with using TelaScience's systems has always been "be prepared to move your stuff quickly in case of a long outage." Most of the projects affected by the recent outage were prepared and able to move a DNS pointer and set up a new home in under the time of the DNS update once it was clear the outage was going to be more than a few hours.
Moving to systems hosted by OSGeo will not remove the fact that projects are still responsible for their own setup, backup, and migration of their custom services in the case of an outage (not withstanding common ones like trac, mail, etc). Otherwise, a project not prepared for this is at the mercy of the BOFHs.
We're guests at TelaScience, and we should remember to continue to treat our relationship as such. Moving all of our services that are hosted at TelaScience to our own systems removes the guest aspect, but not the volunteer one.
We're now ready for round 2 of Virtual Machine creation on our hardware.
osgeo3
Name Web
Cores 2
Ram 4
HD+Swap 32+4=36
DRBD Yes (so 72 GB total)
osgeo4
Name Qgis
Cores 2
Ram 4
HD+Swap 50+[4]=54
DRBD No
Name Webextra
Cores 2
RAM 4
HD+Swap 20+[4]=24
DRBD No
How's the backend access for VM management coming?
Could you also give me a readout from each Host of how much total disk
space we had to start with. I just want to keep track of how much we
have left to work with.
Thanks,
Alex
The above virtual machines are created and running. They can be accessed
at *.osgeo.osuosl.org like the previous machines.
With this batch of VMs we should be able to finish moving all of osgeo2
services. I don't anticipate creating any more VMs until we've finished
that task.
TODO List:
Does someone have a list of the QGIS admins who need access, and is
there a volunteer to set up their access?
Also, can we get a status report on Backup, Wiki and Secure?
It would probably be good to move LDAP to Secure and test it before we
create any more VMs.