Would anyone be willing to host a second kernel.org site?
The recent troubles we've had at kernel.org pretty much highlight the issues with having an offsite system with no easy physical access. This begs the question if we could establish another primary kernel.org site; this would not only reduce the load on any one site but deal with any one failure in a much more graceful way.
Anyone have any ideas of some organization who would be willing to host a second kernel.org server? Such an organization should expect around 25 Mbit/s sustained traffic, and up to 40-100 Mbit/s peak traffic (this one can be adjusted to fit the available resources.)
If so, please contact me...
-hpa
Signature · 3 lines
<[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <[email protected]>
Quoted 10 lines · H. Peter Anvin
The recent troubles we've had at kernel.org pretty much highlight the issues with having an offsite system with no easy physical access. This begs the question if we could establish another primary kernel.org site; this would not only reduce the load on any one site but deal with any one failure in a much more graceful way.
Anyone have any ideas of some organization who would be willing to host a second kernel.org server? Such an organization should expect around 25 Mbit/s sustained traffic, and up to 40-100 Mbit/s peak traffic (this one can be adjusted to fit the available resources.)
We've priced this lately and I think the cheapest you are looking at is around $6500/month for a 25Mbit connection. That's not a huge amount of money but it's enough that it shows up on people's radar screens as a line item, it's $80K/year, so there would have to be some justification.
Signature · 2 lines
--- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Quoted 9 lines · Larry McVoy
Quoted 4 lines
Anyone have any ideas of some organization who would be willing to host a second kernel.org server? Such an organization should expect around 25 Mbit/s sustained traffic, and up to 40-100 Mbit/s peak traffic (this one can be adjusted to fit the available resources.)
We've priced this lately and I think the cheapest you are looking at is around $6500/month for a 25Mbit connection. That's not a huge amount of money but it's enough that it shows up on people's radar screens as a line item, it's $80K/year, so there would have to be some justification.
Yep. I still laugh at those who say "bandwidth is free." They've obviously never bought anything from UUNet. At any rate, a full DS3 (45mbps) will run between 7k and 20k USD per _month_. Last time I checked, kernel.org didn't have the funds for 7k/year much less per month.
Server colocation is a far cheaper solution, but then they have the same problems they have now... limited access to the hardware when something goes wrong (and it always does.)
--Ricky
Followup to: <[email protected]> By author: Larry McVoy <[email protected]> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
Quoted 6 lines
We've priced this lately and I think the cheapest you are looking at is around $6500/month for a 25Mbit connection. That's not a huge amount of money but it's enough that it shows up on people's radar screens as a line item, it's $80K/year, so there would have to be some justification.
No doubt. In this similar vein, it's probably good to point out to people just how much ISC's contribution to kernel.org is actually worth...
-hpa
Signature · 3 lines
<[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <[email protected]>
Quoted 4 lines · H. Peter Anvin
Followup to: <[email protected]> By author: Larry McVoy <[email protected]> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernelQuoted 1 line
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
We've priced this lately and I think the cheapest you are looking at is around $6500/month for a 25Mbit connection. That's not a huge amount of money but it's enough that it shows up on people's radar screens as a line item, it's $80K/year, so there would have to be some justification.
No doubt. In this similar vein, it's probably good to point out to people just how much ISC's contribution to kernel.org is actually worth...
No kidding. I didn't realize they were hosting it, that's very nice of them.
Do you have any statistics on what percentage of the download traffic is whole kernels versus patches? If most of the traffic is whole kernels, I think I might be able to offer up a fix for that.
Signature · 2 lines
--- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Quoted 3 lines
Do you have any statistics on what percentage of the download traffic is whole kernels versus patches? If most of the traffic is whole kernels, I think I might be able to offer up a fix for that.
this is something that hooking into a cache heirarchy (e.g. NLANR) might help resolve.
-- craig
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig I. Hagan "It's a small world, but I wouldn't want to back it up"
hagan(at)cih.com "True hackers don't die, their ttl expires"
"It takes a village to raise an idiot, but an idiot can raze a village"
Stop the spread of spam, use a sendmail condom!
http://www.cih.com/~hagan/smtpd-hacks
In Bandwidth we trust
Quoted 6 lines · On 19 Jan 2002 16:49:16 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]> wrote:
The recent troubles we've had at kernel.org pretty much highlight the issues with having an offsite system with no easy physical access. This begs the question if we could establish another primary kernel.org site; this would not only reduce the load on any one site but deal with any one failure in a much more graceful way.
Quoted 6 lines
Anyone have any ideas of some organization who would be willing to host a second kernel.org server? Such an organization should expect around 25 Mbit/s sustained traffic, and up to 40-100 Mbit/s peak traffic (this one can be adjusted to fit the available resources.)
If so, please contact me...
Hello Peter,
I don't know if this could be any real help, but anyway I have a slightly different suggestion, that may be interesting. Years ago we did a DNS-project that allows to spread a domain to several _different_ ip locations based on the dns-_requesting_ ip. You may know such a technique from akamai (MS daughter). In fact we implemented and test-runned it years ago, but did not find any customer interested (in fact only real big customers _can_ be interested at all, and we didn't have the "connections"). Anyway the know-how is still here and can be used to help kernel.org, if interested. The basic idea is, that this splits costs in running kernel.org to several locations. These locations can (e.g.) be providers who may have some strategic interests. You may as well come up with a GNU project of spreading kernel.org mirrors - meaning every provider be it small or big can have its own mirror, and _only_ his customers (depending on their IP or his AS) are using it. So if you have a major breakdown at the primary server, people will get no _new_ pages, but kernel.org itself looks up throughout all IP-ranges that have a mirror "attached".
What do you think?
Regards,
Stephan von Krawczynski