Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2016-06-21 17:22:15 +1000 (+1000), Joshua Hesketh wrote:
Good update, thanks fungi.
Just a thought, given the pain we felt yesterday when static.o.o was down,
we should consider if a log solution needs to be a priority. Using afs (or
swift) could allow us to scale static.o.o horizontally.
Yes, and it's not the only lengthy static.o.o outage we've had over
the past month either. I agree that solving it is a good candidate
for prioritization, but we need to go back and choose between a
couple of options on the table there.
It hurts a lot when it's down because of so many services being served
from it. We could also separate the published websites (status.o.o,
governance.o.o, security.o.o, releases.o.o...) which require limited
resources and grow slowly, from the more resource-hungry storage sites
(logs.o.o, tarballs.o.o...).
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-Infra mailing list
OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
