[SAC] Server Planning [was Re: OSGeos New Servers]

Committees SAC mailing list
1

Martin Spott wrote:

Hi SAC crew (OSL support not addressed in this EMail),

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 01:17:29PM -0800, Alex Mandel wrote:

I have coded the new machines OSGeo3 and OSGeo4 (Bigger Drives and RAID
6). We'd like OSGeo4 up 1st, [...]

Do we really ? According to my understanding the LDAP service (either
via a "secure VM" or directly on the host OS) would run on 'osgeo3' -
having smaller but faster disk access. If we're having 'osgeo4' up
first, then we'd start setting up a lot of virtual machines which
depend on the LDAP service without having the local LDAP service
running.

I know, we always have the option of connecting to the current LDAP
service and switch over when the other machine is up at OSL, but I
would not consider this as being my favourite plan.

BTW, I'm surprised to be the only one who has made a statement about
which machine should be up first and now to realize that things are
announced to be exactly the opposite way.

Cheers,
  Martin.

* Moving this to the list *

The Virtual Machines can be moved easily between the phyiscal hardware
hosts. So in reality which one comes up 1st isn't necessarily the final
home of any given virtual machine. We can have both turned on
immediately, OSL just sounded like they really wanted to wait for a new
version of their server management tool (It's in RC5 right now) so a
staggered loading would provide shuffling space, and let them use the
newest version on whichever machine came up 2nd (of course leaving the
option to shuffle all the machines for a few days to upgrade the 1st
machine if needed).

I apologize if I missed your comment about which machine to bring up
1st, looking back I see stuff about which VM to bring up 1st but not
which physical machine.

I'm under the impression that we want to get osgeo2 turned off asap, and
most of those services would be heading to VMs on osgeo4 eventually.
It's also not 100% clear to me that the LDAP VM will go on osgeo3, if
there is concern about the host OS I/O bottlenecking it would make sense
to have that on a different host than the Trac/SVN. Of course maybe I'm
over thinking it.

So do we need local LDAP up 1st at OSL or can we use the current LDAP
and start moving osgeo2 stuff 1st?

Thanks,
Alex

2

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 03:02:51PM -0800, Alex Mandel wrote:

The Virtual Machines can be moved easily between the phyiscal hardware
hosts. So in reality which one comes up 1st isn't necessarily the final
home of any given virtual machine.

That's ok with me, but why the heck do you ask beforehand if you're
going to follow your own plan anyway ?

Actually I disagree with some of the observations and conclusions which
have been claimed during the transition planning but, hey, if people
like to make decisions on their own I'm in a better position of washing
my hands of it :-))
But _if_ people are being asked to express an opinion, then I'd be
delighted to see the response being honoured in some way.

Cheerio,
  Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

3

Martin Spott wrote:

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 03:02:51PM -0800, Alex Mandel wrote:

The Virtual Machines can be moved easily between the phyiscal hardware
hosts. So in reality which one comes up 1st isn't necessarily the final
home of any given virtual machine.

That's ok with me, but why the heck do you ask beforehand if you're
going to follow your own plan anyway ?

Actually I disagree with some of the observations and conclusions which
have been claimed during the transition planning but, hey, if people
like to make decisions on their own I'm in a better position of washing
my hands of it :-))
But _if_ people are being asked to express an opinion, then I'd be
delighted to see the response being honoured in some way.

Cheerio,
  Martin.

Ah, double checking it appears either way we need both hosts up to
completely move osgeo2 unless we want to shuffle multiple virtual
machines after a few weeks. So it sounds like starting up both machines
with the current Ganeti would better suit our needs, so I will modify
the request to OSL.

To make sure I've distilled everyone's suggestions correctly-

Current Summary:
Machines are osgeo3 and osgeo4
Virtual Machines will be named by primary DNS and or service.
Defaults - Debian Stable 64 bit, 10GB HD, 4GB ram, 1 cpu

Estimated Virtual Machines by final physical host:
osgeo3 - tracsvn, web, secure
osgeo4 - lists, download1,backup,qgis,grass,projects
unplaced - webextra(Planet, Geodictionary, etc)

Order of Install
secure, wiki, anything else that's currently on osgeo2, TBD

Please feel free to adjust and comment:
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Transition_Plan_2010

Thanks,
Alex