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

Alex Mandel tech_dev at wildintellect.com
Tue Feb 23 19:05:42 EST 2010

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:


More information about the Sac mailing list