Hi, OSUOSL will shut down the current x86 machines (cfarm186, 187, 188) on March 30th at the latest. I would like to have a replacement before that.
Thinking about the options below, and given the result of the discussion, I think we should still keep one large machine for parallel tests and builds. It can be a physical or virtual machine, it doesn't really matter for x86. I've asked for at least 32 cores / 64 GB / 2-3 TB storage. I propose we go with Debian forky (current testing) to setup something that would stay relevant for the next 6 years or so. The second use-case is to have several different OS, but the machines can have smaller hardware specs. I've asked OSUOSL if Openstack is relevant here, anticipating up to 8 VMs with each 8-12 cores, 16-32 GB RAM, 500 GB - 1 TB storage. Assuming a positive response from OSUOSL, does anybody want to help setup VMs on the Openstack cluster? Baptiste On 21-01-26, Baptiste Jonglez via cfarm-users wrote: > On 15-11-25, Baptiste Jonglez via cfarm-users wrote: > > As some of you may know, OSUOSL is moving to a new datacenter. > > (...) > > > > However, the three x86 machines (cfarm186, 187, 188) are getting quite > > old, so OSUOSL is looking at replacing them with newer hardware. We > > probably won't be able to keep as many machines. > > > > Here are two possible options to start the discussion: > > > > - option 1: one much bigger machine, bare metal. Which (single) OS makes > > the most sense? > > > > - option 2: several virtual machines. Which (multiple) OS would be useful? > > > > Here, "big" means dual-socket Intel Xeon Platinum 8280, so 56 cores / 112 > > threads, with 768 GB RAM. > > So, it seems we should rather go with option 2: have many small virtual > machines instead of one big physical x86 server. > > I see three ways to run that: > > (a) ask OSUOSL to use their OpenStack cluster: it delegates physical > maintenance to competent people. Also, each VM can have its own public > IP address, which simplifies things a lot. However, it would only work > with "common" operating systems. I will ask OSUOSL what OS they can > support. > > (b) run virtualization ourselves on one of the big OSUOSL physical servers. > However, it requires more maintenance on our end (e.g. maintaining a > Proxmox setup), and we probably won't be able to have a separate IP per > VM. Also, it would waste hardware resources: even 10 VMs would be far > from filling up one server. > > (c) find somebody that already has the expertise and infrastructure to run > VMs with unusual OS, and ask if they could provide some for cfarm. > Ideally, each VM would need its own public IP address. > > I would rather go with (a) for common OS and (c) for uncommon ones, and > avoid (b). > > > Here is the OS wishlist collected from the thread: > > - Haiku, Minix, Hurd and Sortix (especially Hurd) > - Trisquel > - Illumos distributions (OpenIndiana, OmniOS, Tribblix) > - Fedora or Gentoo > > Baptiste > _______________________________________________ > cfarm-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.tetaneutral.net/listinfo/cfarm-users _______________________________________________ cfarm-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tetaneutral.net/listinfo/cfarm-users
