On Monday, March 03, 2014 12:32:48 Justin Herman wrote: > As far as reimbursement and membership credit I have submitted them.
*nod* Its in my backlog. > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Justin Herman <[email protected]> wrote: > > My question is why no other options viable for hosting? > > > > Why MUST we use AWS? Why do we need 99.99 availability for 6 servers? Why > > could we not hybrid the design (like Craig said) and use some local > > hosting > > and some AWS? > > > > Hardware is cheap and easy to come by. Hosting our own allows us to have a > > TON more CPU and RAM and storage. It something like spiff/wiki/fileserver > > due to hardware failure, upgrade needs, network connection... we could > > always but a static page for our contact info so it doesn't seem like we > > fell off the face of the internet. > > > > If we want to have a class on AWS by all means fire up a demo site. That > > has nothing to do with our production infrastructure. > > > > I know we all want more internet and lots of people SAY TWC is unreliable > > but I haven't seen anything saying HOW unreliable at the 48 Summit space > > it > > is. Are we down or frequent outages? Not getting promised service <BW>? > > Excessive packet loss? Are we taking metrics? > > > > And if TWC is that bad WHY was it chosen to use them? > > > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Craig Bergdorf <[email protected]> wrote: > >> or, if it's $200 and you know for a fact the space needs it right now, > >> just grudgingly buy it and hold mild anger towards those that said it > >> wasn't needed (sorry, in a mood). Unless (crosses fingers) this is meant > >> as a way to test a new, functional system for the space approving > >> purchases, if so: > >> > >> Is there a budget for the space that includes consumables like toilet > >> paper that any member is allowed to see / comment on? What percentage of > >> the remainder of that does this $200 represent? > >> > >> As I mentioned before, I think this is a great idea, and the lower price > >> tag just makes it better. I also have mentioned we should be paying more > >> for internet so we can supplement our real host with some old fashioned > >> house file servers (and a webcam/open sign/phone that doesn't require so > >> much maintenance). > >> > >> If a call for comments is up, my only concern is one of not knowing if > >> the amount we have for monthly improvements has included all the > >> consumables I would think higher priority (such as toilet paper). I am > >> also surprised that there is a penny left in this fund after 2 months of > >> building. > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Torrie Fischer <[email protected] > >> > >> > wrote: > >>> On Monday, March 03, 2014 11:35:51 Justin Herman wrote: > >>> > I agree with Andrew, > >>> > > >>> > I hold several concerns about this proposal and think we need to > >>> > >>> evaluate > >>> > >>> > the needs of the infrastructure. > >>> > >>> If you've got "several concerns", what are those concerns? I too can > >>> claim to > >>> be "concerned" about something and not actually say why. > >>> > >>> Instead of doing any useful synhak work today or tomorrow, I'll be > >>> producing a > >>> technical report that shows why this investment will benefit the hacker > >>> community we aim to support. > >>> > >>> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:33 AM, Andrew Buczko > >>> > >>> <[email protected]>wrote: > >>> > > WAT? > >>> > > > >>> > > first you said it was $1.60 > >>> > > Then $16.40 > >>> > > Now it's $123.10 > >>> > > > >>> > > ? > >>> > > > >>> > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Torrie Fischer > >>> > >>> <[email protected]>wrote: > >>> > >> Previous thread: > >>> > >> > >>> > >> https://synhak.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-February/003393.html > >>> > >> > >>> > >> I'd like to propose that we spend $200 to reserve the two t1.micro > >>> > >> instances > >>> > >> in that proposal for the purpose of web servers. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Our current AWS expenditure is still ~$80/mo. Spending $200 up > >>> > >>> front will > >>> > >>> > >> reduce that bill by $16.40/mo and keep our infrastructure expenses > >>> > >>> low > >>> > >>> > >> for the > >>> > >> next three years. Thats an extra $16.40 we can invest elsewhere > >>> > >>> with a > >>> > >>> > >> break > >>> > >> even point of 12 months. > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >>> > >> Discuss mailing list > >>> > >> [email protected] > >>> > >> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >>> > > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ > >>> > > Discuss mailing list > >>> > > [email protected] > >>> > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Discuss mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Discuss mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
