Hi all
Just a quick update on our latest hardware order: We are soon getting a new database server, a new place for the /home dir and, in effect, a second login server (willow; stable projects will be moved to a virtual box). And on top of that, we get the playground box for the openstreetmap folks.
Anyway, the servers have been ordered, but won't arrive before May 25th. And it's possible that there will be another week of delay, or even two. I will let you know when I have more details.
Regards, Daniel
Hi,
Just a quick update on our latest hardware order: We are soon getting a new database server, a new place for the /home dir and, in effect, a second login server (willow; stable projects will be moved to a virtual box). And on top of that, we get the playground box for the openstreetmap folks.
What is the current location of /home? Hemlock? What is going to happen to that server?
Also to which server will stable be moved?
Bryan
Bryan Tong Minh schrieb:
Hi,
Just a quick update on our latest hardware order: We are soon getting a new database server, a new place for the /home dir and, in effect, a second login server (willow; stable projects will be moved to a virtual box). And on top of that, we get the playground box for the openstreetmap folks.
What is the current location of /home? Hemlock? What is going to happen to that server?
Also to which server will stable be moved?
Bryan
Yes, home is currently on hemlock. Hemlock, vandale and zedler will be idle when the new systems have been integrated fully. We have not yet decided on what to do with them. Some may be decommissioned (so save power and make room for new servers), lent to OSM, dedicated to some special/stable tools, or we may keep them as alternative login servers. Willow will then also be free for use as a second login server. We will look into tools for workload management / grid computing tools to make the most of having multiple login servers.
Stable will move to a virtual box/zone on the new server that will also host the /home directory. It's currently causing next to no load, so virtualizing it seems the right thing.
-- daniel
2009/5/17 Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de
Willow will then also be free for use as a second login server.
Will willow be left running Solaris then? Or will a different OS be used?
Simon Walker schrieb:
2009/5/17 Daniel Kinzler <daniel@brightbyte.de mailto:daniel@brightbyte.de>
Willow will then also be free for use as a second login server.Will willow be left running Solaris then? Or will a different OS be used?
This has not been decided yet. We might let it run solaris, or change it to linux or freebsd. Having the option to use different OSes is nice, but having to maintain multiple OSes takes effort.
-- daniel
Dnia 17.05.2009 Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de napisał/a:
Will willow be left running Solaris then? Or will a different OS be used?
This has not been decided yet. We might let it run solaris, or change it to linux or freebsd. Having the option to use different OSes is nice, but having to maintain multiple OSes takes effort.
I think that for stability it is useful to have more homogenious environment (pretty similar setup on multiple machines) so that, for example, moving a project from 'unstable' to 'stable' is easy.
Having said that, should you need any help with FreeBSD, I volunteer to assist as I am using those systems since 2.1-RELEASE (that's circa 1995).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Marcin Cieslak:
I think that for stability it is useful to have more homogenious environment (pretty similar setup on multiple machines) so that, for example, moving a project from 'unstable' to 'stable' is easy.
yes; the only reason we don't is that most of our users only have experience with Linux, and find the Solaris userland unfamiliar (this was evident when we only had one server, which ran Solaris). we thought that using Linux on the login servers, while adding complexity for us, would reduce the amount of user support we had to do.
unfortunately the original plan - which was that i would continue to maintain the Solaris side of the infrastructure and someone else would be responsible for the user servers running Linux - did not work out very well, and a lot of my time is taken up fixing problems on the Linux side.
so, we're currently testing FreeBSD on vandale to see how it compares to Linux; if we did decide to move, all the Linux servers would be changed to FreeBSD, leaving only two operating systems, like we have at the moment. if we don't move, we won't be left with three operating system, we'll simply stop testing on vandale.
the exception, which Daniel is referring to, is that during the migration, we would install one server (willow) with the new OS, and encourage people to use that, while retaining the existing Linux server for a while. this allows us to do more real world testing (not many people are actually using the test server), and also gives people time to migrate to the new OS. after that's complete, we would reinstall the Linux systems with the new OS.
other than FreeBSD, we're also considering standardising on Solaris for user servers, which would leave us with a single OS. we might also decide not to change anything. but none of this has been decided yet, more testing is needed before we can make a firm decision.
- river
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:34 AM, River Tarnell river@loreley.flyingparchment.org.uk wrote:
so, we're currently testing FreeBSD on vandale to see how it compares to Linux; if we did decide to move, all the Linux servers would be changed to FreeBSD, leaving only two operating systems, like we have at the moment. if we don't move, we won't be left with three operating system, we'll simply stop testing on vandale.
If the reason for using a second OS at all is user familiarity, why would FreeBSD be any better than Solaris?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Aryeh Gregor:
If the reason for using a second OS at all is user familiarity, why would FreeBSD be any better than Solaris?
because many of the things Linux users are familiar with (particular commands, arguments, etc) are also present in FreeBSD, but not in Solaris.
(usually there's another way to do the same thing, but it requires a reasonable understanding of the system to find it; many of our users are at the stage where they know a lot of interesting commands, but don't have a very strong overall knowledge of Unix.)
- river.
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:41 AM, River Tarnell < river@loreley.flyingparchment.org.uk> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Aryeh Gregor:
If the reason for using a second OS at all is user familiarity, why would FreeBSD be any better than Solaris?
because many of the things Linux users are familiar with (particular commands, arguments, etc) are also present in FreeBSD, but not in Solaris.
And additionally, I personally find FreeBSD to be a superior operating system. In my experienced it just plain works better.
(usually there's another way to do the same thing, but it requires a reasonable understanding of the system to find it; many of our users are at the stage where they know a lot of interesting commands, but don't have a very strong overall knowledge of Unix.)
- river.-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (HP-UX)
iEYEARECAAYFAkoRc5AACgkQIXd7fCuc5vJfgQCdGC9bKTxg4Ur5VUhuH1chCiDp +WQAn2mx7esWwsxinZo/llQxHS+oFIgv =rKDa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:47 AM, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
And additionally, I personally find FreeBSD to be a superior operating system. In my experienced it just plain works better.
River thinks the same about Solaris. The point is that most toolserver users probably don't -- they're used to Linux.
Hello,
River Tarnell wrote:
Marcin Cieslak:
I think that for stability it is useful to have more homogenious environment (pretty similar setup on multiple machines) so that, for example, moving a project from 'unstable' to 'stable' is easy.
yes; the only reason we don't is that most of our users only have experience with Linux, and find the Solaris userland unfamiliar (this was evident when we only had one server, which ran Solaris). we thought that using Linux on the login servers, while adding complexity for us, would reduce the amount of user support we had to do.
unfortunately the original plan - which was that i would continue to maintain the Solaris side of the infrastructure and someone else would be responsible for the user servers running Linux - did not work out very well, and a lot of my time is taken up fixing problems on the Linux side.
Is there a list/compilation of problems found on Linux? I think that would be quite interesting for a lot of people. May be on the wiki?
- river
Best regards,
Yann
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Is the commons database going to still be shared between s1 and s3? That may be a good use for one of those leftover servers...
X!
On May 17, 2009, at 7:00 AM [May 17, 2009 ], Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Bryan Tong Minh schrieb:
Hi,
Just a quick update on our latest hardware order: We are soon getting a new database server, a new place for the /home dir and, in effect, a second login server (willow; stable projects will be moved to a virtual box). And on top of that, we get the playground box for the openstreetmap folks.
What is the current location of /home? Hemlock? What is going to happen to that server?
Also to which server will stable be moved?
Bryan
Yes, home is currently on hemlock. Hemlock, vandale and zedler will be idle when the new systems have been integrated fully. We have not yet decided on what to do with them. Some may be decommissioned (so save power and make room for new servers), lent to OSM, dedicated to some special/stable tools, or we may keep them as alternative login servers. Willow will then also be free for use as a second login server. We will look into tools for workload management / grid computing tools to make the most of having multiple login servers.
Stable will move to a virtual box/zone on the new server that will also host the /home directory. It's currently causing next to no load, so virtualizing it seems the right thing.
-- daniel
Toolserver-l mailing list Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Soxred93:
Is the commons database going to still be shared between s1 and s3? That may be a good use for one of those leftover servers...
commons is on s2, and will remain there, as there's no reason to move it.
there is a separate copy of commons on the other servers to allow people to make joins between commons and other wiki / user databases. moving these to a separate server would render them useless, since the entire point is to allow joins to other databases on the same server.
- river.
toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org