Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2016-06-21 17:34:07 +0000 (+0000), Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2016-06-21 18:16:49 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
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...).
Agreed, that's actually a pretty trivial change, comparatively
speaking.
Oh, though it bears mention that the most recent extended outage
(and by far longest we've experienced in a while) would have been
just as bad either way. It had nothing to do with recovering
attached volumes/filesystems, but rather was a host outage at the
provider entirely outside our sphere of control. That sort of issue
can potentially happen with any of our servers/services no matter
how much we split them up.
I don't think it would have been just as bad... Even in the unlucky case
where the VMs end up on the same machine and are all affected, IIUC
rebuilding some of them would have been much faster if they were split
up (less data to rsync) ?
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-Infra mailing list
OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
