[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ftp-master moved to newraff

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 12:09:58PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 05:54:02PM +0000, James Troup wrote:
> > ftp-master has moved to newraff.
> > 
> > Sorry for the lack of notice.  Although migrating ftp-master to a more
> > powerful and better connected machine was always a long term plan, it
> > recently became much more immediately necessary.
> Can someone elaborate on that, please?

Basically it started becoming a problem for VisiNet about how much
bandwidth ftp-master was using. They made no threats, and were very
friendly about the whole situation. They were asking that auric be put
on a throttled connection except for during mirror pushes. That's not an
ideal situation for us, but I can certainly understand Visi's situation
as well.

They did not ask us to move the machine. James and I talked, and we felt
it was probably best, considering the options available.

> > Tomorrow I'll unrestrict auric.
> Are there any special functions auric is to serve now?

Me personally, I'd like to move the sparc buildd off vore to the E3000 I
have here on my T1 (4x248Mhz, 4Gigs of RAM). I'd like vore (U30) to go
to someone who wants to help with sparc stuff (debian-installer testing,
etc..or even X builds...hint hint :)

Not sure what to do with auric. I'll leave that up to James.

> I do wonder, however, if it is wise for all of our critical project
> infrastructure to be running on the same machine architecture.  Didn't
> the fact that ftp-master was not an i386 box potentially save our bacon
> from a truly dreadful Trojan attack last November[1]?

I agree, but we don't have too many SB2000's laying around, which is
what it would take to compete with that HP's muscle. My E3000 would be
nice, but at 150lbs. it's not too easy to ship, and really doesn't make
any sense.

Debian     - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/

Reply to: