Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-admin - Re: [SM-Admin] Getting things going again...

sm-admin AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Developer Only Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jeremy Blosser (emrys)" <jblosser-smgl AT firinn.org>
  • To: sm-admin AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Admin] Getting things going again...
  • Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:50:39 -0500

On Oct 20, Adam Clark [adamsgl AT dhbit.ca] wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 12:12:21AM -0500, Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> > As for (b), as discussed I'm planning to front at least the first year.
> > I'll take donations to make back what I can but it's covered regardless.
> > A year is a decently long time... we'll either grow even more over the
> > next
> > year and be in a place next year where more people can contribute, or we
> > won't grow and will decide to go back to free hosting somewhere else. We
> > need something dedicated with an SLA, and if we can even try it for a year
> > that's something significant.
> >
> > The location question (we'll call it (c)) was discussed in the other
> > thread; I didn't really hear any objections to sprocketdata. It has a
> > *lot* going for it, more than any other place I can think of.
>
> So is that what we're going for? I'm not sure, by the other posts, if
> this is where we're definitely heading or not.

I've heard at least "no objection" approval from most of the TLs on using
them, and no one has put forward any objection or substantially better
option, so yes.

> > > I would like to make the argument though that the location where things
> > > are hosted based on who we have 'available' currently is moot, or
> > > should
> > > be a very low priority. We've seen turnover at every level in the SMGL
> > > organization, and it's entirely likely that whoever we may have admin
> > > an
> > > SMGL server (or servers) at the physical level now, will probably not
> > > be
> > > the same person or persons who's adminning it 6 months, or a year, or 3
> > > years down the road. I agree we should have an organization that's got
> > > an SLA, can replace bits for us, etc. But where we put servers based
> > > on
> > > who's at what position in the SMGL structure should fall to a much
> > > lower
> > > priority, imho.
> >
> > I disagree that it's a low priority. With all due respect, the physical
> > location of the servers is an overriding factor in the current downtime.
>
> Not really - if the server was a paid-for co-located server, it would
> have been trivial to have a hard drive ordered and replaced by the
> technicians on hand. But, it wasn't. It was a hobby server provided
> for free, by me, as part of my 'personal stuff' at the centre.

Getting a hard drive in a box is not necessarily all it takes.

> > If the server was somewhere where more than one SMGLer could have reached
> > it, we could have gotten a rebuild moving much more quickly. A server
>
> That's only true in the cast of a co-located box - and from what you've
> mentioned above, it seems the lean is toward a dedicated server. A
> dedicated server means no SMGL'er has access to it physically, whether
> there's 50 SMGL techs in the area, or 0.

We haven't decided 100% yet if it's going to be coloc or dedicated, I'm
still waiting on final pricing. And while it's true it would matter more
for a coloc than a dedicated box, we may still need to go server-side for a
dedicated box. My understanding is that with these guys we would still
have physical access to a dedicated box if necessary. They're responsible
for hardware and the initial base OS install (from their list of base
OSes), anything else is us. Since we'd be using another OS we may well
need to go server-side sometimes to diagnose something. We're not going to
want to ask them to replace hardware so we can restore from backups any
time we can't get a ping for some reason.

Attachment: pgp2jLxGDWAiW.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page