[SAC] Virtual Machine Policy
Tyler Mitchell (OSGeo)
tmitchell at osgeo.org
Tue May 4 14:47:10 EDT 2010
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
More information about the Sac
mailing list