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