Re: [E-devel] (Summary reply) Anonymous CVS & Servers - YOU CAN HELP!

[shadoi <sh...@na...>]

edevelop.org, elivecd.org and various developer's personal sites are
currently running on a server I bought just for this purpose. They are
imposing 0 load. The bandwidth and datacenter hosting is provided for
free by Hosting Solutions, Inc. (http://bluehost.com). I know the owner
personally. The server is an AMD64 with a hardware RAID mirrored drive.
It's not a Dual Core opteron but the board will handle them. I may need
to get an ok from them before chewing up more bandwidth but aside from
that, there's nothing to stop us from moving e.org and CVS/SVN to that
server. It's ready and waiting. If people are worried about me running
off with the server for some weird reason, I can get wholesale prices on
hardware and would be willing to host it for free.

I'm also happy to mirror CVS, or be a round-robin for e.org, or whatever
is decided.

-Blake


Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 01:15:40 -0500 Michael Jennings <e-...@ka...> babbled:
>
>  
>
>>On Thursday, 26 January 2006, at 13:22:52 (+0900),
>>Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>"Tell us where to donate and we will" - well for over a year now
>>>there has been a donate butotn on www.enlightenment.org - on the
>>>left side, see where it says in an image icon "put your money where
>>>your mouth is - support us" - there. we have been registered for the
>>>ef.net donation system for a while now. donations are pretty sparse
>>>and small - maybe people just don't notice. but you CAN
>>>donate. currently donations go into a paypal account KITTY run by
>>>Nathan <nin...@gm...>. We have been letting funds accumulate a
>>>bit to maybe one day afford something like this. So how - either
>>>donate DIRECTLY via Paypal to nin...@gm..., or if you don't
>>>trust that donate vis sf.net's donation system and let them have
>>>their cut (we won't see all the money then). i think they take 5%
>>>from memory and paypal have fees too.
>>>      
>>>
>>If memory serves, SF charges 2-3% just like Paypal does.  Merchant
>>account providers tend to charge about that much for credit card
>>transactions anyway if you lack a certain volume, so Paypal's fee is
>>pretty fair.
>>    
>>
>
>i checked. it's 5%
>http://sourceforge.net/donate/index.php?group_id=2
>see down the page under "What fees will be deducted from my donation?" :( it's
>fairly hefty considering its on top of paypal's fees. :)
>
>  
>
>>Obviously, SF taking another cut on top of that isn't necessarily
>>ideal, so I'd encourage folks to donate directly via Paypal if
>>possible.  SF donations go through Paypal via Nathan's very same
>>Paypal account, so if you don't trust going directly to Paypal, you
>>really don't trust SF either.  :-)
>>    
>>
>
>well more to the point - u don't trust that somneone is syphoning donations off
>to themselevs by posting to this list claiming to be the e donation account
>holder. it's a matter of trust as u say - and i will vouch that that is indeed
>the correct paypal email address for the account.
>
>  
>
>>I can personally vouch for the fact that Nathan's been handling the
>>donations for us for a long time now, and he has yet to run off to
>>Zimbabwe with the money.  So it's a pretty safe bet all around.
>>raster and I (and numerous others) have met Nathan personally and can
>>vouch for him, so if you don't trust our judgment, you should probably
>>hang on to that $20 anyway. ;-)
>>    
>>
>
>indeed. we vouch - now this could be a conspiracy with you and me being
>impersonated by someone else pretending to be who we are - and nathan too -
>sure. possible. if you think this is possible - then u can go thru sf.net - if
>you think that more trustworthy. that's up to you - just be aware we get less
>of the donation that u actually give. but now u need to take it on trust that
>all 3 of us so far are not being impersonated and we arw who we say we are and
>that we are vouching for the correct information.
>
>  
>
>>>"25GB of traffic isn't much" - Well sure. Fileserving isn't. If it's
>>>CVS where it has to process a lot - svn too, then it puts load. Also
>>>thats only thinktux, and that may go up over time too. Also remember
>>>it will come in spikes - so provisioning for them is a good idea.
>>>      
>>>
>>Also keep in mind that cvs wasn't designed to scale real well,
>>particularly in pserver mode.  Bandwidth is not going to be the key
>>issue for anyone hosting a mirror; it's going to be CPU load.
>>    
>>
>
>indeed - the thinktux guys were having that isssue. the first port of call imho
>woudl be just to get a cvs mirror up - if this works flawlessly for a while -
>then maybe get a svn server up too if svn proves to use significnatly less cpu
>than cvs (on the same box) to reduce load.
>
>  
>
>>>"I'll help donate" - FANTASTIC! The response has been very positive
>>>so far and I am pleasantly surprised with it. This is great. of
>>>course we will want to post more prominently to annouce lists, on
>>>the website, get-e.org, edevelop.org etc., but this is a good
>>>indicator of people lisitening in the last 24hrs and those reading
>>>and responding to their email. You don't need to run and donate
>>>right now - we should first still decide if this IS the right option
>>>for us and then how much it wil cost us to set up. Ongoing costs are
>>>simply hardware maintenance and people's time spent administering
>>>the system.
>>>      
>>>
>>To most folks around here, one more box wouldn't make a real dent in
>>their admin load.  I think the biggest factor is going to be how long
>>it will take before we can afford to buy a server sufficient to the
>>task.  Having recently purchased a dual dual-core AMD64 system for a
>>customer, I'll tell you right now they're not cheap.  We speced ours
>>out at around $6k.  I can provide exact specs if needed.
>>    
>>
>
>i'm seeing servers going from 1.5-3k for something reasonable - not top of the
>line - but possibly what we could want. this is more the debate at the moment.
>what do we need, what can we live with, and what can we actually afford.
>thispart of things has been skipped a bit so far - as i think we still need to
>debate the worthiness of getting a box at all, but the offer is pretty much on
>the table form osuosl, so if we fill out end of things - we should be golden.
>
>  
>
>>>"enlightenment.org is slow" - We can't do much - It's hosted on
>>>sf.net and hoevere fast it is - is how fast e.org will be. If we run
>>>our own server we have a bit more control - but also we have fewer
>>>freidns to help push up the service quality of the network
>>>overall. We likely can't be putting sites everywhere (in the USA,
>>>UK, Japan, China, India, etc.). We could definitely have the option
>>>of local mirrors for speedier access in the future. Though I say I
>>>am in Japan and enlightenment.org isn't too bad. Maybe you forget
>>>the days of 14.4k modems... :)
>>>      
>>>
>>If we can pull together enough servers, I think we can put a real dent
>>in performance issues, but mirroring a CMS can get real ugly.  Perhaps
>>HandyAndE can chime in here with some suggestions on how scaleable his
>>CMS is.
>>    
>>
>
>his cms should be the most scalable for mirroring as its all pre-compiled html
>pages thus just rsyncing the output dir will work wonders. :)
>
>  
>
>>>"Where will the server be" - We have a tentative offer of hosting at:
>>>  http://osuosl.org/
>>>It's in Oregon, USA. Free bandwidth - free rackspace, power and minimal
>>>administration as needed to be done by the lab. We can and likely will
>>>administer our own box and simply give them root password info as a
>>>courtesy in case poo hits the fan and they need it.
>>>      
>>>
>>I'd also like to point out that the OSUOSL guys are extremely
>>knowledgeable and have served us quite well (cAos).  They also host
>>Debian and Gentoo, among numerous other projects, so they've got ample
>>experience (and references!) in this area.
>>    
>>
>
>most excellent. i was talking to cshields and theres definitely positive
>feedback in getting this to happen from that end. good to hear they have a good
>rep. :)
>
>  
>
>>>"Use SVN!" - That's not a solution. It's a complication. It's EASY
>>>to mirror CVs usijng CVSup - but mirror CVS to an svn repository has
>>>more complexity and more things to go wrong. Whatever we do run -
>>>we'd like to have as few problems as possible. We NEED to mirror CVS
>>>at ANY rate. we then need to convert the mirrored CVs tree into
>>>something else. Let's get the mirroring working first to solve most
>>>people's problems. Adding SVN simply adds confusion and support
>>>issues - as develoeprs will use CVSA and users then won't. "CVS is
>>>fine - SVN problem" will be your answer most likely. :)
>>>      
>>>
>>Exactly my point.  If there's a call for an SVN mirror, that's great.
>>I have no problem with folks using it.  But it doesn't solve the
>>fundamental problem:  Mirroring the repository requires resources
>>whether the end result is CVS, SVN, or carrier pigeon. :)
>>    
>>
>
>indeed - cvs mayneed more - but given sufficient resoruces dedicated we can put
>a good dent in it - ok thebox may get loaded up and slow down - but likely not
>to the point where sf.net cvs is now for most people :) svn can in the future
>possibluy be used to alleviate that - IF svn truly does use less cpu per
>"checkout" or "update" comapred to cvs. i really have no facts or experience
>with this so i am hesitant just to leap on the svn bandwagon without first
>getting cvs right.
>
>  
>
>>>"Caos is using OSUOSL - we will help" - Thanks Mej! We might yet
>>>take you up on that offer - how is the service ther so far? network
>>>ok? maybe in the longer run if we get a box - we can arrange to nfs
>>>mount eachother to give better access to files more readily?
>>>      
>>>
>>Network service and reliability has been excellent.  And if we do end
>>up purchasing a box for the project, some type of network-available
>>filesystem should be quite doable.  We can also provide redundancy and
>>failover.
>>    
>>
>
>indeed - thats probably somewhere both proejcts can support eachother
>implicitly.
>
>  
>
>>We also have some east coast servers (near Newark, IIRC) which could
>>provide some bi-coastal balancing.
>>    
>>
>
>sounds good - though we'll need a more complex dns setup then to make it
>automatic :) but yes. sounds workable.
>
>i'm definitely going to let this thread go for a bit and let everyone hammer
>out their ideas/queries and see what consensus we do end up with.
>
>i'm going to put $100 in myself just as soon as we have our budget figured out.
>
>  
>
>>Michael
>>
>>-- 
>>Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX)  http://www.kainx.org/  <me...@ka...>
>>n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/       Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> "Learn to enjoy your own company.  You are the one person you can
>>  count on living with for the rest of your life."     -- Ann Richards
>>
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------
>>This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
>>for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
>>searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
>>http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
>>_______________________________________________
>>enlightenment-devel mailing list
>>enl...@li...
>>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>