[SAC] Virtual Machine Policy

[Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo)]

On 05/04/2010 11:16 AM, Alex Mandel wrote:
> I see 2 scenarios:
> 1. a VM per project, resources will need to be kept low to make sure we
> have a enough space and at least 1 SAC member has to be in the know
> about what's going on that VM.
>
> 2. 2 Projects VMs, one with Php and one without (single thread vs multi
> threaded apache), and split projects amongst the 2. This might be a
> better use of shared resources/efficiency.

I don't know enough about VMs resource sharing issues, but can certainly 
see the benefit of #1 - have a VM per project.  Then projects have 
fullest amount of freedom.

I think all OSGeo projects should have space on OSGeo managed hardware - 
thereby porting all primary websites from xblades is important to me. 
Not only do projects want/need stable infrastructure, but it looks bad 
for OSGeo too if they fail - we tell sponsors that we provide 
infrastructure support, but when several sites are down for a week then 
we failed at a major objective.  I'm not blaming telascience, just 
saying that critical sites should be on OSGeo machines so a larger team 
can manage them.  Leave the really cool stuff on the blades though :-)

> *Should we pool all mediawiki needs onto the Wiki Vm?

Worked well so far.

> I plan to put in a VM creation request in the next couple of days with
> QGIS, GRASS, and Webextra, if we can come to some agreement and specs
> other VMs can be created at the same time.

Did you already put in one for the main web VM?

Tyler