[Dev] New server - Consensus Needed

aurelien aurelien at hackers.camp
Thu May 5 05:30:18 GMT 2016

Luke <g4jc at openmailbox.org> writes:

> On 05/04/2016 05:54 PM, Isaac David wrote:
>> Le mer. 4 mai 2016 à 16:24, André Silva <emulatorman at riseup.net> a écrit :
>>> In my opinion, i prefer the new one for package/multimedia hosting
>>> and the old one for website/labs/git/revision controls for
>>> multimedia. What do you think?
>> I also like the idea of putting the old server to use, but I would like to
>> make sure the following questions are addressed before deciding what
>> things to put on which server:
>> How could we take advantage of the privacy bonus of the new server?,
>> Are there some things that would benefit more from using that privacy?
>> What is the cost of migration? Can we move any service just as easily
>> as any other?
>> Also, what are the things that need the increased resources of the
>> new server more. I see a potential dilemma here:
>> The new server doesn't just have more disk but also more RAM, and it's
>> the network services (maybe not all of them) that need more computing
>> power AFAIK. I don't think we spend a lot of CPU and RAM hosting packages,
>> artwork and running related tools like dbscripts; do we? On the other hand
>> we would also like more room for storing more packages and artwork.
> I think that a MediaGoblin server would be nice, so if we wanted to we
> could use the old server for art/media. As far as privacy - we do still
> have two mirrors running TOR that not many people seem to utilize.
> https://wiki.parabola.nu/System_Upgrade_using_TOR
> This server could definitely host e-mail as well, which would be nice
> since the hosting is more secure than all of our current providers.
> Perhaps lukeshu or fauno could give us some insight on how long the cost
> migration would take. There is a lot of script magic running on our
> server that may need to be setup again.

Emulatorman tell me in the chan that Parabola will import some stuf from
Manjaro and Artegos and by the way we could also import free stuff from
BlackArch and ArchStricke.

The point on that lasts is that they need to be filtered from non-free
and grey list with FossOlogy (view) information in the ML on that point.

To create that filter FossOlogy need a docker tool. So it could be fine
to get a bit of space for that too.

From my point of view:

Server 0 the old one should get for the website, wiki, design ... , it
works fine and rarely goes down compared with other website.

Server 1 the new one should be user for all the packages and the filter
FossOlogy, the ISO and a VPN for communications between the server 0 &

Then at the time we know exaclty the level of consumption of all server
by server, we could get time to think to offer new services, like mail
(as secured as possible), why not mediagoblin or anything else.

Server 0 or 1 could be change as you wish in what I suggest. All is
about harmony between services and hardware capacities and all of them

About the point of using the servers as using machine, a third server
with 24GB of ram on 1TB of SSD would be needed 8-p

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 818 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/attachments/20160505/79e7f687/attachment.sig>

More information about the Dev mailing list