This is very powerful hardware. It should do nicely. Here is my detailed assessment.
Recoverability: The PDF specifies a single 1TB HDD connected to a non-redundant internal controller. The operation of the system is thus dependent upon the status of a single disk drive. This is fine for a development environment as long as we don't mind being down for the time required to restore from backup. We must also be prepared to lose all changes to the system made between point-of-backup and point-of-failure. If we're running a weekly full backup to tape, for instance, we are exposed to a potential loss of 7 days' work. This situation can be mitigated to a large extent by the addition of a redundant disk drive. This would require the purchase of another HDD identical to the first one in conjunction with the use of drive mirroring capabilities (RAID/0). Drive mirroring can be done in hardware by the HDD controller or in software by the OS LVM. Hardware is more reliable and performant -- and correspondingly more expensive. Your call, sir. We must formulate a recovery strategy. Is there an existing solution on-site? NetBackup? Bacula? Amanda? If not, will we recover the system in its entirety from a boot image or will we re-install and reconfigure? The virtual images can be backed up via snapshots and archived. Is there a data archival method in place? Tape? ETL? EDL? System Availability: Will the machine be housed in a data center with redundant power sources and line conditioners? The specified power supply is non-redundant. If this box is living in a non-ventilated wire closet it's vulnerable to a single power surge. We should have a replacement power supply on hand at a minimum. A redundant power option is much better. Performance: The CPU and memory are easily sufficient to the intended deployment with sufficient headroom for expansion. I hate to be a pain about all of this, but if you've ever seen the look of horror and grief on the face of someone who is just realizing that their important data is irretreivably lost I'm ceratain you would understand. I'm not familiar with the iDRAC6, but I always tend to err on the side of over-specification. Get the big one. It will probably help with frame flicker. Let me know your decisions and we'll firm up the HDD config. We'll need to make a detailed network topology plan as well. And other things. --Matt On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:50:09 AM UTC-5, William wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Matthew Alton > <matthe...@gmail.com<javascript:>> > wrote: > > Excellent! I am very happy to be of help. I have an IBM xSeries AMD64 > > server at home. If you will tell me your choice of platform and > > virtualization technology for this project I can begin working this > weekend. > > Nice. See the attached PDF for what I'm currently planning to buy (I > can get it cheaper through my university than the price listed there). > It's a 1U rack mounted 16-core 3Ghz AMD64 box, with 64GB of ECC RAM. > Going 1U is very advantageous for me regarding longterm hosting costs > (e.g., it costs half as much as 2U). > > > If we coordinate our efforts well, we should be able to transfer my > virtual > > machine images and definitions to your new hardware and then just fire > them > > up. I recommend CentOS/KVM on technical merit, but you must of course > weigh > > many non-technical and site-specific factors into your ultimate choice. > I > > am highly flexible. > > I personally use VirtualBox for virtualization for my projects, and > Ubuntu as my main host OS. However, the primary reason I use > VirtualBox is that I also have several OS X machines, and one to be > able to share identical virtual machines on both Linux and OS X hosts. > I think KVM would make a lot of sense for *this* project, since it's > the best at running Linux machines, and that's precisely what we're > planning to do. Also, if you're doing the admin work, I'm fine with > CentOS as well. Note that I'm planning to get an iDRAC6 Enterprise > management card, so you can easily get console access (with video) to > the computer when necessary. Should I get the extra 8GB SD card > version of the iDRAC6? (I can't see why, but maybe you would find is > useful for running VM's, since that's what is evidently designed > for...) > > How should the hard drives be configured? > > -- William > > > > > --Matt > > > > On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:12:03 AM UTC-5, William wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Matthew Alton <matthe...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > Hello, > >> > > >> > I am a professional Unix sys admin. My current title is Senior > >> > Systems > >> > Administrator at Magellan Health Services. I have been working in > Unix > >> > and > >> > Linux system administration for 23 years. I currently work with a > small > >> > team on the care and feeding of a few hundred AIX LPARs and RHEL > VMware > >> > nodes. Back in 2001 I was able to get Python onto the list of > approved > >> > programming languages at Anheuser-Busch. My colleague and I wrote > >> > several > >> > hundred thousand lines of Python code which are still in production > on > >> > Solaris, AIX and Linux machines there. I am also a master C > programmer. > >> > I > >> > specialize in systems programming and software porting. SAGE is a > huge > >> > help > >> > to me in my studies at Saint Louis Community College where I am > >> > currently > >> > re-taking Calculus 2 after 25 years. > >> > > >> > If you can provide the hardware and bandwidth for a build farm of > VMs, > >> > I > >> > can help with the porting, testing, packaging, and documentation of > >> > SAGE. I > >> > would recommend using a Linux machine as the VM host with KVM as the > >> > virtualization technology. I can help with designing and building > such > >> > a > >> > machine. I would be happy to help with any other technology as well, > >> > though > >> > I might be less familiar with it. I've worked with KVM, Xen, BSD > Jails, > >> > AIX > >> > LPARs, Solaris Domains, VMware, VirtualBox, and several experimental > >> > systems. As long as you're happy with purely simulated hardware > devices > >> > KVM > >> > is an excellent choice. > >> > > >> > We might start with RHEL/Fedora/CentOS/Scientific Linux (RPM), SUSE > >> > (RPM), > >> > Ubuntu/Debian (APT), FreeBSD (PKG), Gentoo and others. Once the farm > is > >> > built the job of maintaining the ports and packages on each node > could > >> > be > >> > shared. We should assume the role of official package maintainer for > >> > SAGE > >> > with each of the OSes & distros. > >> > > >> > I might be able to recruit a colleague to assist in the effort, > though > >> > he > >> > is currently enrolled in Real Analysis at UMSL. His time is severely > >> > limited. > >> > > >> > Peace. > >> > > >> > --Matt > >> > > >> > >> Awesome -- the above is enough to convince me to plan to move forward > >> with this. I will plan to have such a machine setup to be configured > >> in less than 2 months. I want to wait to try out a similar machine, > >> which I ordered a week ago, but hasn't arrived yet. > >> > >> -- William > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > "sage-devel" group. > > To post to this group, send email to > > sage-...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > sage-devel+...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en. > > > > > > > > -- > William Stein > Professor of Mathematics > University of Washington > http://wstein.org > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel?hl=en.
