On 3/3/2014 12:31 PM, Justin Herman wrote: > My question is why no other options viable for hosting? No one has said that there are no other viable options 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? As I mentioned before, I am completely welcome to exploring alternatives. Neither Torrie nor I have been presented with an alternative that doesn't either significantly increase our price or decrease our web presence's functionality. You seem to be the one that is the most adamant about exploring alternatives, yet the only one you have proposed[1], I have demonstrated that there would be an increase in cost incurred to SYN/HAK[2]. Remember, the only quote that we've gotten so far that reached 10mbps upstream was the one from OneCommunity for $760/mo.[3]
[1] https://synhak.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-February/003433.html [2] https://synhak.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-February/003436.html [3] https://synhak.org/pipermail/noc/2014-January/000110.html With no viable options being presented, I feel like Torrie and I are having our time wasted, because the argument is "but there could be something cheaper out there". It's like calling a meeting with no defined agenda. The only thing that happens when a meeting is called with no defined agenda is every participant leaves the room going "Well, that was a waste of time." I have directly asked you before to present options.[4] You have yet to do so. If you wish to continue this conversation, please bring forth evidence supporting an alternative hosting solution that either increases our capability, or only minimally impacts it. [4] https://synhak.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-February/003436.html > > 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. Computers are of the "Cheap, Reliable, Modern, Pick two" matrix. > > 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. One of our current AWS infrastructure's purposes is fault-tolerance and reliability. What better way to demonstrate that than by doing a live demo to people on the production infrastructure? Also, the costs associated with temporarily spinning up 10 instances for an hour while doing a class are virtually nothing, and if you are concerned about the costs of using the live environment, I will pay the dollar out of my own pocket, even if I do not attend the class, just to prove it is dirt cheap. > > 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? TWC is unusable as a bandwidth provider for webhosting purposes for the following reasons: 1.) Lack of static IPs with our current plan without paying for them 2.) 768kbps upstream 3.) Concerns about physical layer reliability. Next time we are at the space, remind me to show you how the TWC technician installed our coaxial cable. If we don't cross paths within a week or so, I'll post a picture to discuss. 4.) Time Warner Cable is in the process of being acquired by Comcast. Both Time Warner and Comcast are known for (excuse my language) the absolute fucking worst customer service in the industry. We are with TWC right now because at the old space, the only other option was AT&T, whose customer service is on par with Comcast. If you would like to know my opposition to AT&T, I will email you copies of the complaints I have made against them with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and the Federal Communications Commission. I will demand that any talk of spending any space money on anything from AT&T go to a proposal so I can block consensus on it. 5.) Price. Alternatives that would provide us adequate bandwidth are so much more expensive than we are able to afford at this time. See the quote from OneCommunity.[3] > > > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Craig Bergdorf <[email protected] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > > >> https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Discuss mailing list > > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[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
