Re: new hardware + rhel6 migration
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Ray Wang rayw...@gnome.org wrote: Blog, bugzilla, wiki, build server, snowy, web, git, l10n, developer library are also critical, but not that fundamental critical, so they can be running in VMs, and also it's easy to backup. I wonder how many and which of these services we would like to run in dedicated VMs. By dedicated I mean like snowy or bugzilla; a VM just for that web service. We should probably take an inventory of all of the web services/sites that we have and decide which can share virt space and which should use dedicated virt space. Christer ___ gnome-infrastructure mailing list gnome-infrastructure@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
Re: new hardware + rhel6 migration
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Christer Edwards christer.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Ray Wang rayw...@gnome.org wrote: Blog, bugzilla, wiki, build server, snowy, web, git, l10n, developer library are also critical, but not that fundamental critical, so they can be running in VMs, and also it's easy to backup. I wonder how many and which of these services we would like to run in dedicated VMs. By dedicated I mean like snowy or bugzilla; a VM just for that web service. We should probably take an inventory of all of the web services/sites that we have and decide which can share virt space and which should use dedicated virt space. An easy way to gauge this might be to term what is critical and what is not. Here is an educated guess: Critical: - bugzilla - wiki - snowy (only because it might have sensitive data and we want to limit who/what has access to the data) Noncritical in that they don't need a dedicated VM: - piwik - sysadmin.gnome.org - foundation.gnome.org - civicrm -- Jeff Schroeder Don't drink and derive, alcohol and analysis don't mix. http://www.digitalprognosis.com ___ gnome-infrastructure mailing list gnome-infrastructure@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
Re: new hardware + rhel6 migration
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Christer Edwards christer.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Christer Edwards christer.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: I've created a wiki page in the Sysadmin namespace to document the ideas we've agreed on. http://live.gnome.org/Sysadmin/Virtualization Please contribute your thoughts, concerns, and ideas to make this a smooth transition. I haven't seen any additions to the wiki page mentioned above or any responses to this thread. I almost have (I thought I had) RHEL6 ready to build in cobbler, so we really are close to being able to start deploying and upgrading machines. Again, I think it is important for us to document and discuss what it is we want to migrate first, what needs to virtualize vs what doesn't, and what we want to move to RHEL6 and in what order. I know there is a lot there, but just toss in your initial thoughts and the thread will start moving. The snowy vm was built as Fedora 12 because we wanted it to match RHEL6 as close as possible. We want the stable tomboy online public release to be on RHEL6. It is already virtualized so this would be a decent start. label really isn't the best place for wiki and it seems like the first that should move. Are / were you still working on this? I know ray was helping do it. Do you think you could build a RHEL6 wiki vm and then that could be moved? dns master and ldap master should not be virtualized. Everything else other than nfs is fair game imo. note: I know there has been a lot of discussion regarding hardware and virtualization in IRC, but not everyone idles or is active in IRC. I think this discussion needs to be more public, so please just toss in whatever thoughts and ideas you have. -- Jeff Schroeder Don't drink and derive, alcohol and analysis don't mix. http://www.digitalprognosis.com ___ gnome-infrastructure mailing list gnome-infrastructure@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
Re: new hardware + rhel6 migration
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Jeff Schroeder jeffschroe...@computer.org wrote: label really isn't the best place for wiki and it seems like the first that should move. Are / were you still working on this? I know ray was helping do it. Do you think you could build a RHEL6 wiki vm and then that could be moved? Ray was/is working on this but ran into a snag regarding a Python version dependency that wasn't available until RHEL6. I told him that I would re-build the VM on RHEL6, but I also ran into a snag in building it. I need to talk to you (Jeff) re: cobbler to see where my problem is. After this is built he's going to re-rsync the data and it should be ready to go. dns master and ldap master should not be virtualized. Everything else other than nfs is fair game imo. Am I correct in my understanding that ldap is going to go on the smaller of the two new machines? Should / can dns go with it? Do we want to keep them separated? Remember, we do have a secondary NS server now at the Canonical DC. If nfs should not be virtualized where do we suggest that goes? Do we want to put it just on combobox or the new R610? I guess the question I'm getting to now is: if we virtualize pretty much everything, are we getting rid of the old out-of-warranty hardware (which is just about everything)? Christer ___ gnome-infrastructure mailing list gnome-infrastructure@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
Re: new hardware + rhel6 migration
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 10:18 -0700, Christer Edwards wrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Jeff Schroeder jeffschroe...@computer.org wrote: label really isn't the best place for wiki and it seems like the first that should move. Are / were you still working on this? I know ray was helping do it. Do you think you could build a RHEL6 wiki vm and then that could be moved? Ray was/is working on this but ran into a snag regarding a Python version dependency that wasn't available until RHEL6. I told him that I would re-build the VM on RHEL6, but I also ran into a snag in building it. I need to talk to you (Jeff) re: cobbler to see where my problem is. After this is built he's going to re-rsync the data and it should be ready to go. dns master and ldap master should not be virtualized. Everything else other than nfs is fair game imo. Am I correct in my understanding that ldap is going to go on the smaller of the two new machines? Should / can dns go with it? Do we want to keep them separated? Remember, we do have a secondary NS server now at the Canonical DC. To me having ldap and nfs and maybe mango together on a single non-virtualized system makes a lot of sense. If nfs should not be virtualized where do we suggest that goes? Do we want to put it just on combobox or the new R610? Combobox was bought specifically to do NFS. The ability to host VMs was secondary. The NFS would be run out of the host operating system to avoid another layer of IO indirection. I guess the question I'm getting to now is: if we virtualize pretty much everything, are we getting rid of the old out-of-warranty hardware (which is just about everything)? We have 3 newish (*) machines now, all with at least 8 cores and 32GB of memory. And we have 5 out of warranty or no-warranty machines currently running. In terms of cpu and memory the old machines are way ahead. More so with the new machines. We don't want anything mission critical running on the old machines; and basically everything we do is mission critical. I think we can just unrack machines and save the space and the power as we get things migrated off of them. Maybe save one for a build slave - build slaves are mostly disk intensive and while combobox has nice disks, I'm not sure we want builds constantly churning over NFS. - Owen (*) drawable and vbox went into service at the end of 2008, and have 3 year warranties on them. We really need to investigate extending those out to 5 years before they expire. ___ gnome-infrastructure mailing list gnome-infrastructure@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
Re: new hardware + rhel6 migration
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 12:48 -0500, Owen Taylor wrote: Am I correct in my understanding that ldap is going to go on the smaller of the two new machines? Should / can dns go with it? Do we want to keep them separated? Remember, we do have a secondary NS server now at the Canonical DC. To me having ldap and nfs and maybe mango together on a single non-virtualized system makes a lot of sense. As Jeff pointed out on IRC, this was meant to say DNS not NFS. - Owen ___ gnome-infrastructure mailing list gnome-infrastructure@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
Re: new hardware + rhel6 migration
Dear all, IMHO, What I'm thinking is just like you guys did, those mission critical services should reside in non-virtualized system, so NFS (everyone's data is on it) LDAP (you have to have this one for authentication) DNS (When it is down, you can not log into any server) are better running on physically servers. Blog, bugzilla, wiki, build server, snowy, web, git, l10n, developer library are also critical, but not that fundamental critical, so they can be running in VMs, and also it's easy to backup. It's just my two cents, please feel free to correct me where I'm wrong. :) Cheers, On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 10:18 -0700, Christer Edwards wrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Jeff Schroeder jeffschroe...@computer.org wrote: label really isn't the best place for wiki and it seems like the first that should move. Are / were you still working on this? I know ray was helping do it. Do you think you could build a RHEL6 wiki vm and then that could be moved? Ray was/is working on this but ran into a snag regarding a Python version dependency that wasn't available until RHEL6. I told him that I would re-build the VM on RHEL6, but I also ran into a snag in building it. I need to talk to you (Jeff) re: cobbler to see where my problem is. After this is built he's going to re-rsync the data and it should be ready to go. dns master and ldap master should not be virtualized. Everything else other than nfs is fair game imo. Am I correct in my understanding that ldap is going to go on the smaller of the two new machines? Should / can dns go with it? Do we want to keep them separated? Remember, we do have a secondary NS server now at the Canonical DC. To me having ldap and nfs and maybe mango together on a single non-virtualized system makes a lot of sense. If nfs should not be virtualized where do we suggest that goes? Do we want to put it just on combobox or the new R610? Combobox was bought specifically to do NFS. The ability to host VMs was secondary. The NFS would be run out of the host operating system to avoid another layer of IO indirection. I guess the question I'm getting to now is: if we virtualize pretty much everything, are we getting rid of the old out-of-warranty hardware (which is just about everything)? We have 3 newish (*) machines now, all with at least 8 cores and 32GB of memory. And we have 5 out of warranty or no-warranty machines currently running. In terms of cpu and memory the old machines are way ahead. More so with the new machines. We don't want anything mission critical running on the old machines; and basically everything we do is mission critical. I think we can just unrack machines and save the space and the power as we get things migrated off of them. Maybe save one for a build slave - build slaves are mostly disk intensive and while combobox has nice disks, I'm not sure we want builds constantly churning over NFS. - Owen (*) drawable and vbox went into service at the end of 2008, and have 3 year warranties on them. We really need to investigate extending those out to 5 years before they expire. -- Ray Wang - Follow your dreams ___ gnome-infrastructure mailing list gnome-infrastructure@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
Re: new hardware + rhel6 migration
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Christer Edwards christer.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: I've created a wiki page in the Sysadmin namespace to document the ideas we've agreed on. http://live.gnome.org/Sysadmin/Virtualization Please contribute your thoughts, concerns, and ideas to make this a smooth transition. I haven't seen any additions to the wiki page mentioned above or any responses to this thread. I almost have (I thought I had) RHEL6 ready to build in cobbler, so we really are close to being able to start deploying and upgrading machines. Again, I think it is important for us to document and discuss what it is we want to migrate first, what needs to virtualize vs what doesn't, and what we want to move to RHEL6 and in what order. I know there is a lot there, but just toss in your initial thoughts and the thread will start moving. note: I know there has been a lot of discussion regarding hardware and virtualization in IRC, but not everyone idles or is active in IRC. I think this discussion needs to be more public, so please just toss in whatever thoughts and ideas you have. Thank you, Christer ___ gnome-infrastructure mailing list gnome-infrastructure@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
