[Foss4g2009] Specs for a machine for the CCIP? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Bruce Bannerman B.Bannerman at bom.gov.au
Thu Jan 29 19:37:57 EST 2009 

IMO:

Julia,

I don't know that we can answer that yet.

It would make sense to host them off site in a secure location, provided that we have good network access to the SCC.

However, this has yet to be decided.

It would be prudent to have an onsite contingency and know what those costs would be.

I have cc'ed this to the CCIP-2009 list for consideration. 


Bruce



 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: foss4g2009-bounces at lists.osgeo.org 
> [mailto:foss4g2009-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of 
> FOSS4G OC - Tour Hosts
> Sent: Friday, 30 January 2009 11:20 AM
> To: Mark Leslie; foss4g2009
> Subject: RE: [Foss4g2009] Specs for a machine for the CCIP?
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> RE: Physical Servers - Will all these machines be located 
> onsite in the exhibition (CCIP booth) or are they going to be 
> hosted elsewhere and be relying on the internet connection at 
> the venue to connect to them?
> 
> If machines are kept onsite within the exhibition we will 
> need overnight security or alternatively will need to 
> consider moving the machines to a locked room. I have not yet 
> allocated a room for this. Please confirm.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Julia 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: foss4g2009-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:foss4g2009- 
> > bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Mark Leslie
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 January 2009 12:09
> > To: foss4g2009
> > Subject: Re: [Foss4g2009] Specs for a machine for the CCIP?
> > 
> > We've been discussing some different options with regard to the 
> > showcase infrastructure.  We've come up with a slightly 
> different view of things.
> > 
> > We were looking to have separate (but identical) machines for the 
> > databases, one for Oracle and ArcSDE (assuming we're hosting these) 
> > and one for PostgreSQL/PostGIS.  If others come to play 
> we'll get one 
> > for them.  In this way the DBs are on an even footing, and the 
> > machines don't need to be all that state-of-the-art.  We 
> can smaller 
> > machines for the application servers.  We may not need one 
> machine per 
> > service, but we should really isolate the I/O as much as 
> possible.  If 
> > we have GeoServer, MapServer and MapGuide running in 
> different VMs on 
> > teh same box, it would be nice to give each their own drive so they 
> > don't thrash the machine.  How many of these servers depends, of 
> > course, on how many services we end up running.
> > 
> > I think it's a poor plan to have a single machine running 
> everything, 
> > and some of the big boys aren't likely going to be happy 
> with that.  
> > By sourcing cheaper machines we can even the playing field and keep 
> > things comparable.
> > 
> > Mark Leslie
> > Geospatial Software Architect
> > LISAsoft
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > Ph: +61 2 8570 5000 Fax: +61 2 8570 5099 Mob: +61 Suite 
> 112, Jones Bay 
> > Wharf 19-21 Pirrama Rd Pyrmont NSW 2009
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > LISAsoft is part of the A2end Group of Companies 
> > http://www.ardec.com.au http://www.lisasoft.com 
> > http://www.terrapages.com
> > 
> > 
> > Cameron Shorter wrote:
> > > Ricardo,
> > > Based on your experience and track record in marrying Geospatial 
> > > Software and Virtual machines, your opinion holds a lot of weight.
> > >
> > > So thank you for sharing your thoughts.
> > >
> > > And yes, we would be delighted to have you play a 
> significant role 
> > > in the CCIP and guide its development.
> > >
> > > Ricardo Pinho wrote:
> > >> Hi Cameron and Frank,
> > >>
> > >> As you probably know, Virtualization is presently a very active 
> > >> area of business, with several players (big ones) trying 
> to get on 
> > >> the top, so it would be very easy to get a sponsor!
> > >> Please carefully  read the following pages:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.virtualization.info/radar/
> > >>
> > >> http://www.virtualization.info/2008/10/microsoft-already-took-23-
> > of.html
> > >>
> > >> For VM technology you can choose from a variety of solutions:
> > >> VMware, Sun, Microsoft VirtualPC & HyperV, Xen & 
> VirtualIron, Linux
> > KVM,
> > >> ... an endless list!!!
> > >> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_platform_virtual_machine
> > >> s
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Well, I must agree with Frank, VMware are the original guys, the 
> > >> oldest on the market and who offers today the best desktop and 
> > >> server performance, features and stability (I suppose!). So they 
> > >> are a very good option, and that was mainly why I have chosen 
> > >> VMware for the GISVM project! (no sponsor reason!!!)
> > >>
> > >> Never the less, it would be desirable to use a standard and 
> > >> compatible solution, so it could be run on any technology. The 
> > >> closer thing I know to this is the work done on: www.dmf.org
> > >>
> > >> OVF:
> > >> 
> http://www.dmtf.org/standards/published_documents/DSP0243_1.0.0.pdf
> > >> http://www.vmware.com/appliances/learn/ovf.html
> > >>
> > >> and
> > >> VMAN:
> > >> http://www.dmtf.org/initiatives/vman_initiative/
> > >> But in practice, I compare this to the early years of 
> OGC, just a 
> > >> big hope! ;-)
> > >>
> > >> One more reason why vmware should be considered, is that 
> VMWare is 
> > >> collaborating with the Ubuntu distro, on their JeOS version! An 
> > >> advantage I am currently using on the next GISVM release that I 
> > >> hope to introduce at ESLAP 2009 ( OpenSource in 
> Portuguese Public 
> > >> Administration Encounter - 28.Jan ).
> > >> http://mapas.igeo.pt/eslap2009/Eslap2009_Prog.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Now, concerning the CCIP project. I must confess that, 
> until know, 
> > >> I didn't quite understood how you plan to execute that 
> excellent idea!
> > >>
> > >> But I would be very pleased to participate on that project and 
> > >> include all work done on the GISVM.
> > >> Only if you think it would be adequate, of course!
> > >>
> > >> Cheers,
> > >> Ricardo Pinho
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Mensagem original ----
> > >> De: Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
> > >> Para: Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at pobox.com>
> > >> Cc: foss4g2009 <foss4g2009 at lists.osgeo.org>
> > >> Enviadas: Segunda-feira, 19 de Janeiro de 2009 22:27:41
> > >> Assunto: Re: [Foss4g2009] Specs for a machine for the CCIP?
> > >>
> > >> The VM technology has not been specified yet. I've heard 
> a number 
> > >> of people speak up for VMWare and we will try to get 
> VMWare to load 
> > >> us a license for the conference in return for marketing.
> > >>
> > >> Re memory:
> > >> * I'm hoping that all virtual installs can be active for the 
> > >> duration of the conference. Is that a realistic expectation from 
> > >> based on hardware constraints?
> > >>
> > >> Re adding other servers:
> > >> I expect this to be an area of debate. Our requirements are:
> > >> 1. Demonstrate interoperability
> > >> 2. Allow side by side comparison of applications (some vendors 
> > >> might not like this). Specifically, make hardware specs 
> equal so we 
> > >> can focus on the software.
> > >> 3. Provide a legacy testbed which can be passed on to future 
> > >> conferences with minimal re-configuration
> > >>
> > >> So maybe we will ask all vendors to build their image on 
> a virtual 
> > >> server, but that they can bring their own server as well, or 
> > >> purchase their own server if they wish.
> > >>
> > >> Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Cameron Shorter wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> For background the CCIP is defined here:
> > >>>>
> > 
> http://external.opengis.org/twiki_public/bin/view/ClimateChallenge2009
> > /Web
> > Home
> > >>>> Basically: One server with multiple virtual machines
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As yet, we have not defined our hardware requirements, and 
> > >>>> everything is on the table as an option. (Especially since my 
> > >>>> experience with hardware is largely limited to 
> installing linux 
> > >>>> on computers I've found in dumpsters).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So please speak up with all the advise you can fire at us.
> > >>>>
> > >>> Cameron,
> > >>>
> > >>> Ah, OK.  Is there a defined VM technology?  VMWare 
> seems to be the
> > most
> > >>> widely supported and well known.  Presumably Win32 
> (perhaps XP?) 
> > >>> VM instances will be available as well as 32bit linux instances?
> > >>>
> > >>> Assuming that not all of the instances really need to 
> be active at
> > once,
> > >>> I would hope that the memory requirements will not be 
> the sum of 
> > >>> the memory requirements of the VMs.  Hopefully you would get at 
> > >>> least 8GB of RAM which should be enough to have several 
> active VMs 
> > >>> with fairly beefy software running.
> > >>>
> > >>> Ultimately, I hope you will keep an option for some 
> participants 
> > >>> to provide their own server that can be plugged into 
> the network 
> > >>> but I do like
> > the
> > >>> convenience of a multi-VM main server as long as it is 
> beefy enough.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best regards,
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -- Cameron Shorter
> > >> Geospatial Systems Architect
> > >> Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
> > >> Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254
> > >>
> > >> Think Globally, Fix Locally
> > >> Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and 
> Open Source 
> > >> http://www.lisasoft.com
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Foss4g2009 mailing list
> > >> Foss4g2009 at lists.osgeo.org
> > >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2009
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>       Veja quais são os assuntos do momento no Yahoo! +Buscados 
> > >> http://br.maisbuscados.yahoo.com
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Foss4g2009 mailing list
> > Foss4g2009 at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2009
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Foss4g2009 mailing list
> Foss4g2009 at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/foss4g2009
>

More information about the Foss4g2009 mailing list