Yes, all the things you say "make sense". :-) It's really just a
matter of priorities. I remember making negative comments about such
suggestions when we had only 2 or 3 machines, basically arguing that
worrying about destruction of the colo was pointless when we could
hardly function with the loss of a single *machine*.
But with 14 (15?) machines in service now, and with 10 more on the
way, with 12 4U machines soon to arrive as well (though not to be
pressed into service right away until we figure out what to do with
them exactly), and with the soon-to-exist Paris data center, it does
start to make some sense to think about geographical diversity.
I'm not sure how important this is, really. But it is at least worth
thinking about.
Sj wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:03:24 -0700, Jimmy (Jimbo)
Wales
<jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:
3. We are widely beloved ... it seems likely that if we pay
the cost of a machine, they would be happy to host on a permanent
basis a slave db machine which we could keep synced to have a constant
realtime backup.
At some point soon, we will be backing up many terabytes of archives
and historical data. Would it make sense to have an offsite location
dedicated to preserving these backups and regular snapshots of the db,
in case there is ever data corruption which goes unnoticed and is replicated
to all active slaves/mirrors?
That location could also maintain a synced mirror of the current projects
and key filesystem content, along with a few machines available for
configuration as temporary web and db servers, in case something terrible
happened at the colo facility.
+sj+
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l