On Monday, March 03, 2014 13:24:14 Justin Herman wrote: > SynHak.org needs to be multiple things. A "playground" maybe should not be > what we use it for. I don't use the plumbing or electric as a "playground" > they are infrastructure. They are constructs.
Oh ok. I'll stop listening then if thats what you think about SYNHAK. No sense in beating my head against a brick wall any more. You simply don't get the culture. I'm not sure who sponsored your membership, but if it was me, I'm regretting it. I'll be sure to be a lot more careful in the future. > > Instead of asking why AWS is the best, I should have asked what are the > goals? > > As far as physical security it had been discussed (for the build working > group) that security be put in place around the primary infrastructure. You > mention a javelin and/or beer but what stops someone from doing that right > now to some of our other precious items (3d printer)? Members. We vet our > members though our membership process. Non of our members have malicious > intentions. If they do we have processes in place to remove them. And if > something catastrophic happens what risk are we at? What could not be > backed up and re-implemented? Implementing backup procedures would be > important. We all have tolerated outages in the past. A few days of outage > for our wiki or spiff is that worth 4 months as a member? We could offsite > host a semi static page for little to no cost. If 48 summit goes off-line > no guests would be the wiser. > > With regards to migration I suggest virtualization. Pick your flavor: > Proxmox, Hyper-v, ZEN, ESXi. (I can donate a essentials plus license for > ESXi if needed) or something else. Then rebuild using git. > > I don't love TWC but I see this as turning point. A time to re-evaluate. > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Torrie Fischer <[email protected]>wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
