Re: [CODE4LIB] new server
Hi Cary, That's great timing, since it will all be fresh in your mind. :-) -- Michael > -Original Message- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of > Cary Gordon > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 1:55 PM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] new server > > I could do that. > > By the time c4lCon rolls around, we will be completing the process of > migrating most of our infrastructure to AWS. So far we have migrated > several of our dev servers and some client production servers. > > Scale at will is a complex topic and very much depends on the nature > of the application. Most of our clients aren't anticipating a run on > their services, although we did use Elastic Cache and CloudFront to > mitigate an anticipated run on files attached to a big announcement by > an NGO. > > Thanks, > > Cary > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Doran, Michael D wrote: > > Hi Cary, > > > >> Amazon has gone from a metric-less, expensive and difficult to manage > >> system to a solid infrastructure with better performance per dollar > >> than we can get in our datacenter. The bonus is that we can scale at > >> will. > > > > I, for one, would be interested in attending a half-day code4lib > preconference workshop covering all the ins and outs of moving from > locally hosted servers to Amazon. Particularly if the presenter has > moved multiple *production* servers to Amazon and can cover things like > how to "scale at will" based on experience. > > > > -- Michael > > > > # Michael Doran, Systems Librarian > > # University of Texas at Arlington > > # 817-272-5326 office > > # 817-688-1926 mobile > > # do...@uta.edu > > # http://rocky.uta.edu/doran/ > > > >> -Original Message- > >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf > Of > >> Cary Gordon > >> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 11:37 PM > >> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] new server > >> > >> When you look at everything that goes into the TCO, it is hard to make > >> a case for a physical server. > >> > >> We have about 17 years experience running systems starting with the > >> California State Library's DEC Alpha. We won't miss running the > >> datacenter on the weekend to deal with a drive failure. > >> > >> Amazon has gone from a metric-less, expensive and difficult to manage > >> system to a solid infrastructure with better performance per dollar > >> than we can get in our datacenter. The bonus is thatt we can scale at > >> will. > >> > >> Cary > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Nate Hill > >> wrote: > >> > I should have anticipated a lot of folks would be pushing AWS or > >> Rackspace > >> > or something off-site. > >> > > >> > At my last job in San Jose I would have *loved* to have outsourced > all > >> of > >> > this because of the complications working with both city and > University > >> IT > >> > and network. > >> > I would have loved to have kissed those Windows servers goodbye and > >> brushed > >> > up on my Linux and had the 24 hour support and zero downtime > guarantee > >> that > >> > came with such a solution. > >> > > >> > In Chattanooga, the situation is different. > >> > > >> > We've got the 1 gig connection, and it is a big piece of this > wonderful > >> > city's identity. I definitely don't know enough about network > >> architecture > >> > to speak meaningfully about it, but we are moving from an antiquated > >> setup > >> > to the fastest public internet in the country. It's pretty cool. I > >> don't > >> > think outsourcing is really part of that plan, you know? I'm really > >> > looking forward to engaging the local geek community in creating > local > >> > solutions. > >> > > >> > I do imagine that in the future as we do one-off apps we'll > experiment > >> with > >> > AWS. For now, I'm awfully excited to set up some hardware, have > >> control of > >> > that hardware (that cannot be taken for granted in public libraries) > >> and do > >> > some tinkering. > >> > > >> > Yes... I do need more th
Re: [CODE4LIB] new server
I could do that. By the time c4lCon rolls around, we will be completing the process of migrating most of our infrastructure to AWS. So far we have migrated several of our dev servers and some client production servers. Scale at will is a complex topic and very much depends on the nature of the application. Most of our clients aren't anticipating a run on their services, although we did use Elastic Cache and CloudFront to mitigate an anticipated run on files attached to a big announcement by an NGO. Thanks, Cary On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Doran, Michael D wrote: > Hi Cary, > >> Amazon has gone from a metric-less, expensive and difficult to manage >> system to a solid infrastructure with better performance per dollar >> than we can get in our datacenter. The bonus is that we can scale at >> will. > > I, for one, would be interested in attending a half-day code4lib > preconference workshop covering all the ins and outs of moving from locally > hosted servers to Amazon. Particularly if the presenter has moved multiple > *production* servers to Amazon and can cover things like how to "scale at > will" based on experience. > > -- Michael > > # Michael Doran, Systems Librarian > # University of Texas at Arlington > # 817-272-5326 office > # 817-688-1926 mobile > # do...@uta.edu > # http://rocky.uta.edu/doran/ > >> -Original Message- >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of >> Cary Gordon >> Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 11:37 PM >> To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] new server >> >> When you look at everything that goes into the TCO, it is hard to make >> a case for a physical server. >> >> We have about 17 years experience running systems starting with the >> California State Library's DEC Alpha. We won't miss running the >> datacenter on the weekend to deal with a drive failure. >> >> Amazon has gone from a metric-less, expensive and difficult to manage >> system to a solid infrastructure with better performance per dollar >> than we can get in our datacenter. The bonus is thatt we can scale at >> will. >> >> Cary >> >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Nate Hill >> wrote: >> > I should have anticipated a lot of folks would be pushing AWS or >> Rackspace >> > or something off-site. >> > >> > At my last job in San Jose I would have *loved* to have outsourced all >> of >> > this because of the complications working with both city and University >> IT >> > and network. >> > I would have loved to have kissed those Windows servers goodbye and >> brushed >> > up on my Linux and had the 24 hour support and zero downtime guarantee >> that >> > came with such a solution. >> > >> > In Chattanooga, the situation is different. >> > >> > We've got the 1 gig connection, and it is a big piece of this wonderful >> > city's identity. I definitely don't know enough about network >> architecture >> > to speak meaningfully about it, but we are moving from an antiquated >> setup >> > to the fastest public internet in the country. It's pretty cool. I >> don't >> > think outsourcing is really part of that plan, you know? I'm really >> > looking forward to engaging the local geek community in creating local >> > solutions. >> > >> > I do imagine that in the future as we do one-off apps we'll experiment >> with >> > AWS. For now, I'm awfully excited to set up some hardware, have >> control of >> > that hardware (that cannot be taken for granted in public libraries) >> and do >> > some tinkering. >> > >> > Yes... I do need more than just a production server, but I've got some >> > reconditioned boxes coming from the city that I can play with for >> testing >> > and staging (for now). >> > >> > For now, this server is going to run/host a Drupal website for the >> library. >> > >> > Please, anybody, do speak up if you think my approach is flawed... >> > >> > N >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Ross Singer >> wrote: >> > >> >> This answer segues well into my question: why, exactly, do you want a >> >> physical server? >> >> >> >> I realize that there are plenty arguments for running your own >> hardware >> >> (and bandwidth is cheap and plentiful in Chattanooga -- which deals >> w
Re: [CODE4LIB] new server
+1 On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Doran, Michael D wrote: > > I, for one, would be interested in attending a half-day code4lib > preconference workshop covering all the ins and outs of moving from locally > hosted servers to Amazon. Particularly if the presenter has moved multiple > *production* servers to Amazon and can cover things like how to "scale at > will" based on experience.
Re: [CODE4LIB] new server
Hi Cary, > Amazon has gone from a metric-less, expensive and difficult to manage > system to a solid infrastructure with better performance per dollar > than we can get in our datacenter. The bonus is that we can scale at > will. I, for one, would be interested in attending a half-day code4lib preconference workshop covering all the ins and outs of moving from locally hosted servers to Amazon. Particularly if the presenter has moved multiple *production* servers to Amazon and can cover things like how to "scale at will" based on experience. -- Michael # Michael Doran, Systems Librarian # University of Texas at Arlington # 817-272-5326 office # 817-688-1926 mobile # do...@uta.edu # http://rocky.uta.edu/doran/ > -Original Message- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of > Cary Gordon > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 11:37 PM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] new server > > When you look at everything that goes into the TCO, it is hard to make > a case for a physical server. > > We have about 17 years experience running systems starting with the > California State Library's DEC Alpha. We won't miss running the > datacenter on the weekend to deal with a drive failure. > > Amazon has gone from a metric-less, expensive and difficult to manage > system to a solid infrastructure with better performance per dollar > than we can get in our datacenter. The bonus is thatt we can scale at > will. > > Cary > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Nate Hill > wrote: > > I should have anticipated a lot of folks would be pushing AWS or > Rackspace > > or something off-site. > > > > At my last job in San Jose I would have *loved* to have outsourced all > of > > this because of the complications working with both city and University > IT > > and network. > > I would have loved to have kissed those Windows servers goodbye and > brushed > > up on my Linux and had the 24 hour support and zero downtime guarantee > that > > came with such a solution. > > > > In Chattanooga, the situation is different. > > > > We've got the 1 gig connection, and it is a big piece of this wonderful > > city's identity. I definitely don't know enough about network > architecture > > to speak meaningfully about it, but we are moving from an antiquated > setup > > to the fastest public internet in the country. It's pretty cool. I > don't > > think outsourcing is really part of that plan, you know? I'm really > > looking forward to engaging the local geek community in creating local > > solutions. > > > > I do imagine that in the future as we do one-off apps we'll experiment > with > > AWS. For now, I'm awfully excited to set up some hardware, have > control of > > that hardware (that cannot be taken for granted in public libraries) > and do > > some tinkering. > > > > Yes... I do need more than just a production server, but I've got some > > reconditioned boxes coming from the city that I can play with for > testing > > and staging (for now). > > > > For now, this server is going to run/host a Drupal website for the > library. > > > > Please, anybody, do speak up if you think my approach is flawed... > > > > N > > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Ross Singer > wrote: > > > >> This answer segues well into my question: why, exactly, do you want a > >> physical server? > >> > >> I realize that there are plenty arguments for running your own > hardware > >> (and bandwidth is cheap and plentiful in Chattanooga -- which deals > with > >> the main carrying cost), but, presumably you'll need more than one > (for > >> replication and whatnot), right? > >> > >> What exactly do you plan to run/host on this server? > >> > >> -Ross. > >> > >> On Monday, July 16, 2012, Cary Gordon wrote: > >> > >> > We currently use Dell in our datacenter, but we are moving almost > all > >> > of our servers to AWS over the next 10 months. > >> > > >> > Thanks, > >> > > >> > Cary > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Nate Hill >> > > >> > wrote: > >> > > I'm shopping for a new dedicated server for our public library > website. > >> > > I'd like to run Ubuntu. > >> > > Does anyone have any hardware suggestions/guidance they'd like to > >> offer? > >> > > I'd like to not spend a zillion dollars. > >> > > Thanks- > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Nate Hill > >> > > nathanielh...@gmail.com > >> > > http://www.natehill.net > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Cary Gordon > >> > The Cherry Hill Company > >> > http://chillco.com > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Nate Hill > > nathanielh...@gmail.com > > http://www.natehill.net > > > > -- > Cary Gordon > The Cherry Hill Company > http://chillco.com
Re: [CODE4LIB] new server
I love this topic and discussion. I wish I had gotten in on it sooner. Though the OP has decided to pursue a different route from on-premise hardware, I'll still share a few thoughts. If one is going to buy a box to act as a web server, I would second the recommendation to use it as a VM host, with the web server being a guest. If the local infrastructure does not already have server virtualization at its core, and you're looking at having just 1-3 physical boxes, then VMware might be a bit much, both in terms of complexity and scale (as it's designed to handle rack upon rack full of nodes), and cost (likely to be applicable in any case -- especially now, since VMware changed its licensing model for vSphere 5). For the past two years, I have been managing several VM hosts running Ubuntu as the base OS, libvirt as the management layer (which has a quite extensive API), and KVM as the hypervisor. It even does a great job running Windows Server guests. Perhaps I have a bit of a bias, but I would definitely say that this combination is mature enough (especially in Ubuntu 12.04) to compete with the likes of vSphere, XenServer, and Hyper-V. I could go on and on here, so I will summarize some more considerations as to not TL;DR. - current and anticipated workloads (can be estimated through good monitoring of existing servers) - capabilities of the VM host hardware (or, why that 7-year-old box might not be a good candidate) - network infrastructure - storage, storage, storage - special hardware needs (e.g. physical security keys) Virtualization is not exactly off-the-shelf easy. For the uninitiated, it takes a few tries to tune the hosts just right. For local, on-premise control of servers, though, it is worth it.
Re: [CODE4LIB] new server
FWIW, we are working toward the release of a free public Drupal 7 AWS AMI that will give you the latest version of Drupal 7, along with Apache PHP 5.3, MySQL (later versions may go with MariaDB). We hope to have this out before DrupalCon Munich, next month. We built this on the Amazon Linux distro, which looks a lot like CentOS (or RHEL). We use this on our own production machines, as well. While I realize that this may be a deal breaker for you, it does save a lot of up-front work. We plan to work on a single box solution that also has Solr and Varnish installed. Thanks, Cary On 7/17/12, Nate Hill wrote: > Folks: > I've received a ton of email arguing for off-site servers and support, and > I'm going to try my best to pursue this angle rather than get my own > hardware. > Thanks for your input- > Nate > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Chris Fitzpatrick > wrote: > >> If you're just wanting a web server for a single site, having a >> physical dedicated server is probably not really needed. But if it's a >> requirement to have stuff, i'd look to buy something that I can set up >> a small VM setup that I could deploy multiple webservers as needed, in >> which case you probably could do worse than a Dell Poweredge running >> VMWare. >> >> An alternative would be to buy a Mac Mini with OS X Server >> installed...you could run Ubuntu on that too. >> >> >> Having said that... I can understand why some would see using >> "cloud-based" systems as "outsourcing", but there is more to it than >> just getting out of physical server management.. There's a lot of >> development platforms coming together now that offer a set of services >> that make developing and managing web applications aaa easier. >> For Drupal, I'd suggest looking at Acquia, as they have a pretty >> good platform for Drupal development and hosting. >> >> b,chris. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Cary Gordon >> wrote: >> > When you look at everything that goes into the TCO, it is hard to make >> > a case for a physical server. >> > >> > We have about 17 years experience running systems starting with the >> > California State Library's DEC Alpha. We won't miss running the >> > datacenter on the weekend to deal with a drive failure. >> > >> > Amazon has gone from a metric-less, expensive and difficult to manage >> > system to a solid infrastructure with better performance per dollar >> > than we can get in our datacenter. The bonus is thatt we can scale at >> > will. >> > >> > Cary >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Nate Hill >> wrote: >> >> I should have anticipated a lot of folks would be pushing AWS or >> Rackspace >> >> or something off-site. >> >> >> >> At my last job in San Jose I would have *loved* to have outsourced all >> of >> >> this because of the complications working with both city and >> >> University >> IT >> >> and network. >> >> I would have loved to have kissed those Windows servers goodbye and >> brushed >> >> up on my Linux and had the 24 hour support and zero downtime guarantee >> that >> >> came with such a solution. >> >> >> >> In Chattanooga, the situation is different. >> >> >> >> We've got the 1 gig connection, and it is a big piece of this >> >> wonderful >> >> city's identity. I definitely don't know enough about network >> architecture >> >> to speak meaningfully about it, but we are moving from an antiquated >> setup >> >> to the fastest public internet in the country. It's pretty cool. I >> don't >> >> think outsourcing is really part of that plan, you know? I'm really >> >> looking forward to engaging the local geek community in creating local >> >> solutions. >> >> >> >> I do imagine that in the future as we do one-off apps we'll experiment >> with >> >> AWS. For now, I'm awfully excited to set up some hardware, have >> control of >> >> that hardware (that cannot be taken for granted in public libraries) >> and do >> >> some tinkering. >> >> >> >> Yes... I do need more than just a production server, but I've got some >> >> reconditioned boxes coming from the city that I can play with for >> testing >> >> and staging (for now). >> >> >> >> For now, this server is going to run/host a Drupal website for the >> library. >> >> >> >> Please, anybody, do speak up if you think my approach is flawed... >> >> >> >> N >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Ross Singer >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> This answer segues well into my question: why, exactly, do you want a >> >>> physical server? >> >>> >> >>> I realize that there are plenty arguments for running your own >> >>> hardware >> >>> (and bandwidth is cheap and plentiful in Chattanooga -- which deals >> with >> >>> the main carrying cost), but, presumably you'll need more than one >> >>> (for >> >>> replication and whatnot), right? >> >>> >> >>> What exactly do you plan to run/host on this server? >> >>> >> >>> -Ross. >> >>> >> >>> On Monday, July 16, 2012, Cary Gordon wrote: >> >>> >> >>> > We currently use Dell in
Re: [CODE4LIB] new server
Nate Hill writes > I've received a ton of email arguing for off-site servers and support, and > I'm going to try my best to pursue this angle rather than get my own > hardware. I still recommend to get your own local hardware for backup. You don't want to all your data with one hosting company, so either rent with two different, competing firms or set up local hardware for backup. Cheers, Thomas Krichelhttp://openlib.org/home/krichel http://authorprofile.org/pkr1 skype: thomaskrichel
Re: [CODE4LIB] new server
Folks: I've received a ton of email arguing for off-site servers and support, and I'm going to try my best to pursue this angle rather than get my own hardware. Thanks for your input- Nate On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Chris Fitzpatrick wrote: > If you're just wanting a web server for a single site, having a > physical dedicated server is probably not really needed. But if it's a > requirement to have stuff, i'd look to buy something that I can set up > a small VM setup that I could deploy multiple webservers as needed, in > which case you probably could do worse than a Dell Poweredge running > VMWare. > > An alternative would be to buy a Mac Mini with OS X Server > installed...you could run Ubuntu on that too. > > > Having said that... I can understand why some would see using > "cloud-based" systems as "outsourcing", but there is more to it than > just getting out of physical server management.. There's a lot of > development platforms coming together now that offer a set of services > that make developing and managing web applications aaa easier. > For Drupal, I'd suggest looking at Acquia, as they have a pretty > good platform for Drupal development and hosting. > > b,chris. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Cary Gordon wrote: > > When you look at everything that goes into the TCO, it is hard to make > > a case for a physical server. > > > > We have about 17 years experience running systems starting with the > > California State Library's DEC Alpha. We won't miss running the > > datacenter on the weekend to deal with a drive failure. > > > > Amazon has gone from a metric-less, expensive and difficult to manage > > system to a solid infrastructure with better performance per dollar > > than we can get in our datacenter. The bonus is thatt we can scale at > > will. > > > > Cary > > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Nate Hill > wrote: > >> I should have anticipated a lot of folks would be pushing AWS or > Rackspace > >> or something off-site. > >> > >> At my last job in San Jose I would have *loved* to have outsourced all > of > >> this because of the complications working with both city and University > IT > >> and network. > >> I would have loved to have kissed those Windows servers goodbye and > brushed > >> up on my Linux and had the 24 hour support and zero downtime guarantee > that > >> came with such a solution. > >> > >> In Chattanooga, the situation is different. > >> > >> We've got the 1 gig connection, and it is a big piece of this wonderful > >> city's identity. I definitely don't know enough about network > architecture > >> to speak meaningfully about it, but we are moving from an antiquated > setup > >> to the fastest public internet in the country. It's pretty cool. I > don't > >> think outsourcing is really part of that plan, you know? I'm really > >> looking forward to engaging the local geek community in creating local > >> solutions. > >> > >> I do imagine that in the future as we do one-off apps we'll experiment > with > >> AWS. For now, I'm awfully excited to set up some hardware, have > control of > >> that hardware (that cannot be taken for granted in public libraries) > and do > >> some tinkering. > >> > >> Yes... I do need more than just a production server, but I've got some > >> reconditioned boxes coming from the city that I can play with for > testing > >> and staging (for now). > >> > >> For now, this server is going to run/host a Drupal website for the > library. > >> > >> Please, anybody, do speak up if you think my approach is flawed... > >> > >> N > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Ross Singer > wrote: > >> > >>> This answer segues well into my question: why, exactly, do you want a > >>> physical server? > >>> > >>> I realize that there are plenty arguments for running your own hardware > >>> (and bandwidth is cheap and plentiful in Chattanooga -- which deals > with > >>> the main carrying cost), but, presumably you'll need more than one (for > >>> replication and whatnot), right? > >>> > >>> What exactly do you plan to run/host on this server? > >>> > >>> -Ross. > >>> > >>> On Monday, July 16, 2012, Cary Gordon wrote: > >>> > >>> > We currently use Dell in our datacenter, but we are moving almost all > >>> > of our servers to AWS over the next 10 months. > >>> > > >>> > Thanks, > >>> > > >>> > Cary > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Nate Hill >>> > > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > I'm shopping for a new dedicated server for our public library > website. > >>> > > I'd like to run Ubuntu. > >>> > > Does anyone have any hardware suggestions/guidance they'd like to > >>> offer? > >>> > > I'd like to not spend a zillion dollars. > >>> > > Thanks- > >>> > > > >>> > > -- > >>> > > Nate Hill > >>> > > nathanielh...@gmail.com > >>> > > http://www.natehill.net > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Cary Gordon > >>> > The Cherry Hill Company > >>> > http://chillco.com > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Nate H
Re: [CODE4LIB] new server
If you're just wanting a web server for a single site, having a physical dedicated server is probably not really needed. But if it's a requirement to have stuff, i'd look to buy something that I can set up a small VM setup that I could deploy multiple webservers as needed, in which case you probably could do worse than a Dell Poweredge running VMWare. An alternative would be to buy a Mac Mini with OS X Server installed...you could run Ubuntu on that too. Having said that... I can understand why some would see using "cloud-based" systems as "outsourcing", but there is more to it than just getting out of physical server management.. There's a lot of development platforms coming together now that offer a set of services that make developing and managing web applications aaa easier. For Drupal, I'd suggest looking at Acquia, as they have a pretty good platform for Drupal development and hosting. b,chris. On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Cary Gordon wrote: > When you look at everything that goes into the TCO, it is hard to make > a case for a physical server. > > We have about 17 years experience running systems starting with the > California State Library's DEC Alpha. We won't miss running the > datacenter on the weekend to deal with a drive failure. > > Amazon has gone from a metric-less, expensive and difficult to manage > system to a solid infrastructure with better performance per dollar > than we can get in our datacenter. The bonus is thatt we can scale at > will. > > Cary > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Nate Hill wrote: >> I should have anticipated a lot of folks would be pushing AWS or Rackspace >> or something off-site. >> >> At my last job in San Jose I would have *loved* to have outsourced all of >> this because of the complications working with both city and University IT >> and network. >> I would have loved to have kissed those Windows servers goodbye and brushed >> up on my Linux and had the 24 hour support and zero downtime guarantee that >> came with such a solution. >> >> In Chattanooga, the situation is different. >> >> We've got the 1 gig connection, and it is a big piece of this wonderful >> city's identity. I definitely don't know enough about network architecture >> to speak meaningfully about it, but we are moving from an antiquated setup >> to the fastest public internet in the country. It's pretty cool. I don't >> think outsourcing is really part of that plan, you know? I'm really >> looking forward to engaging the local geek community in creating local >> solutions. >> >> I do imagine that in the future as we do one-off apps we'll experiment with >> AWS. For now, I'm awfully excited to set up some hardware, have control of >> that hardware (that cannot be taken for granted in public libraries) and do >> some tinkering. >> >> Yes... I do need more than just a production server, but I've got some >> reconditioned boxes coming from the city that I can play with for testing >> and staging (for now). >> >> For now, this server is going to run/host a Drupal website for the library. >> >> Please, anybody, do speak up if you think my approach is flawed... >> >> N >> >> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Ross Singer wrote: >> >>> This answer segues well into my question: why, exactly, do you want a >>> physical server? >>> >>> I realize that there are plenty arguments for running your own hardware >>> (and bandwidth is cheap and plentiful in Chattanooga -- which deals with >>> the main carrying cost), but, presumably you'll need more than one (for >>> replication and whatnot), right? >>> >>> What exactly do you plan to run/host on this server? >>> >>> -Ross. >>> >>> On Monday, July 16, 2012, Cary Gordon wrote: >>> >>> > We currently use Dell in our datacenter, but we are moving almost all >>> > of our servers to AWS over the next 10 months. >>> > >>> > Thanks, >>> > >>> > Cary >>> > >>> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Nate Hill >> > >>> > wrote: >>> > > I'm shopping for a new dedicated server for our public library website. >>> > > I'd like to run Ubuntu. >>> > > Does anyone have any hardware suggestions/guidance they'd like to >>> offer? >>> > > I'd like to not spend a zillion dollars. >>> > > Thanks- >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Nate Hill >>> > > nathanielh...@gmail.com >>> > > http://www.natehill.net >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Cary Gordon >>> > The Cherry Hill Company >>> > http://chillco.com >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Nate Hill >> nathanielh...@gmail.com >> http://www.natehill.net > > > > -- > Cary Gordon > The Cherry Hill Company > http://chillco.com
Re: [CODE4LIB] new server
When you look at everything that goes into the TCO, it is hard to make a case for a physical server. We have about 17 years experience running systems starting with the California State Library's DEC Alpha. We won't miss running the datacenter on the weekend to deal with a drive failure. Amazon has gone from a metric-less, expensive and difficult to manage system to a solid infrastructure with better performance per dollar than we can get in our datacenter. The bonus is thatt we can scale at will. Cary On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Nate Hill wrote: > I should have anticipated a lot of folks would be pushing AWS or Rackspace > or something off-site. > > At my last job in San Jose I would have *loved* to have outsourced all of > this because of the complications working with both city and University IT > and network. > I would have loved to have kissed those Windows servers goodbye and brushed > up on my Linux and had the 24 hour support and zero downtime guarantee that > came with such a solution. > > In Chattanooga, the situation is different. > > We've got the 1 gig connection, and it is a big piece of this wonderful > city's identity. I definitely don't know enough about network architecture > to speak meaningfully about it, but we are moving from an antiquated setup > to the fastest public internet in the country. It's pretty cool. I don't > think outsourcing is really part of that plan, you know? I'm really > looking forward to engaging the local geek community in creating local > solutions. > > I do imagine that in the future as we do one-off apps we'll experiment with > AWS. For now, I'm awfully excited to set up some hardware, have control of > that hardware (that cannot be taken for granted in public libraries) and do > some tinkering. > > Yes... I do need more than just a production server, but I've got some > reconditioned boxes coming from the city that I can play with for testing > and staging (for now). > > For now, this server is going to run/host a Drupal website for the library. > > Please, anybody, do speak up if you think my approach is flawed... > > N > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Ross Singer wrote: > >> This answer segues well into my question: why, exactly, do you want a >> physical server? >> >> I realize that there are plenty arguments for running your own hardware >> (and bandwidth is cheap and plentiful in Chattanooga -- which deals with >> the main carrying cost), but, presumably you'll need more than one (for >> replication and whatnot), right? >> >> What exactly do you plan to run/host on this server? >> >> -Ross. >> >> On Monday, July 16, 2012, Cary Gordon wrote: >> >> > We currently use Dell in our datacenter, but we are moving almost all >> > of our servers to AWS over the next 10 months. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Cary >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Nate Hill > > >> > wrote: >> > > I'm shopping for a new dedicated server for our public library website. >> > > I'd like to run Ubuntu. >> > > Does anyone have any hardware suggestions/guidance they'd like to >> offer? >> > > I'd like to not spend a zillion dollars. >> > > Thanks- >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Nate Hill >> > > nathanielh...@gmail.com >> > > http://www.natehill.net >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Cary Gordon >> > The Cherry Hill Company >> > http://chillco.com >> > >> > > > > -- > Nate Hill > nathanielh...@gmail.com > http://www.natehill.net -- Cary Gordon The Cherry Hill Company http://chillco.com
Re: [CODE4LIB] new server
I should have anticipated a lot of folks would be pushing AWS or Rackspace or something off-site. At my last job in San Jose I would have *loved* to have outsourced all of this because of the complications working with both city and University IT and network. I would have loved to have kissed those Windows servers goodbye and brushed up on my Linux and had the 24 hour support and zero downtime guarantee that came with such a solution. In Chattanooga, the situation is different. We've got the 1 gig connection, and it is a big piece of this wonderful city's identity. I definitely don't know enough about network architecture to speak meaningfully about it, but we are moving from an antiquated setup to the fastest public internet in the country. It's pretty cool. I don't think outsourcing is really part of that plan, you know? I'm really looking forward to engaging the local geek community in creating local solutions. I do imagine that in the future as we do one-off apps we'll experiment with AWS. For now, I'm awfully excited to set up some hardware, have control of that hardware (that cannot be taken for granted in public libraries) and do some tinkering. Yes... I do need more than just a production server, but I've got some reconditioned boxes coming from the city that I can play with for testing and staging (for now). For now, this server is going to run/host a Drupal website for the library. Please, anybody, do speak up if you think my approach is flawed... N On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 8:43 PM, Ross Singer wrote: > This answer segues well into my question: why, exactly, do you want a > physical server? > > I realize that there are plenty arguments for running your own hardware > (and bandwidth is cheap and plentiful in Chattanooga -- which deals with > the main carrying cost), but, presumably you'll need more than one (for > replication and whatnot), right? > > What exactly do you plan to run/host on this server? > > -Ross. > > On Monday, July 16, 2012, Cary Gordon wrote: > > > We currently use Dell in our datacenter, but we are moving almost all > > of our servers to AWS over the next 10 months. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Cary > > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Nate Hill > > > wrote: > > > I'm shopping for a new dedicated server for our public library website. > > > I'd like to run Ubuntu. > > > Does anyone have any hardware suggestions/guidance they'd like to > offer? > > > I'd like to not spend a zillion dollars. > > > Thanks- > > > > > > -- > > > Nate Hill > > > nathanielh...@gmail.com > > > http://www.natehill.net > > > > > > > > -- > > Cary Gordon > > The Cherry Hill Company > > http://chillco.com > > > -- Nate Hill nathanielh...@gmail.com http://www.natehill.net
Re: [CODE4LIB] new server
This answer segues well into my question: why, exactly, do you want a physical server? I realize that there are plenty arguments for running your own hardware (and bandwidth is cheap and plentiful in Chattanooga -- which deals with the main carrying cost), but, presumably you'll need more than one (for replication and whatnot), right? What exactly do you plan to run/host on this server? -Ross. On Monday, July 16, 2012, Cary Gordon wrote: > We currently use Dell in our datacenter, but we are moving almost all > of our servers to AWS over the next 10 months. > > Thanks, > > Cary > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Nate Hill > > > wrote: > > I'm shopping for a new dedicated server for our public library website. > > I'd like to run Ubuntu. > > Does anyone have any hardware suggestions/guidance they'd like to offer? > > I'd like to not spend a zillion dollars. > > Thanks- > > > > -- > > Nate Hill > > nathanielh...@gmail.com > > http://www.natehill.net > > > > -- > Cary Gordon > The Cherry Hill Company > http://chillco.com >
Re: [CODE4LIB] new server
We currently use Dell in our datacenter, but we are moving almost all of our servers to AWS over the next 10 months. Thanks, Cary On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Nate Hill wrote: > I'm shopping for a new dedicated server for our public library website. > I'd like to run Ubuntu. > Does anyone have any hardware suggestions/guidance they'd like to offer? > I'd like to not spend a zillion dollars. > Thanks- > > -- > Nate Hill > nathanielh...@gmail.com > http://www.natehill.net -- Cary Gordon The Cherry Hill Company http://chillco.com
