Sorry not sent to list before... Bye Norman
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2008/5/24 Subject: Re: Geronimo request for ASF hosted machines To: Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008/5/24 Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On May 23, 2008, at 7:54 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Geronimo PMC would like to make the following request of the ASF > > Infrastructure team. The request is specifically for machines to be used > > for collaboration and support of our certification efforts. This is an > > extremely extensive set of tests that require significant computing > > resources, often not available to most community members. > > Thank you for your consideration of this request. We will gladly answer any > > questions or provide additional information. > > > Rationale: > > The Apache Geronimo community has a need to support the execution and > > sharing of results from Sun certification tests (cts) which are necessary > > gain JavaEE5 certification compliance. This information is only available > > to those Geronimo committers that have signed the Sun NDA and other Apache > > committers that have signed an NDA and gained approval of the Apache > > Geronimo PMC. This has allowed other Apache projects to test new > > products/releases by running JavaEE 5 TCK tests using the Apache Geronimo > > test infrastructure. > > In the past these resource intensive tests have been run on private machines > > by individuals. As more people become involved with Apache Geronimo and > > related projects, it is becoming obvious that we need a central system to > > run and share the results of these tests. A centralized testing environment > > allows the Geronimo community to more fully participate in the TCK process. > > Some committers don't have access to the hardware resources needed to run > > the Java EE TCK tests in a timely manner. Although some ad-hoc sharing of > > private machines has occurred, this is not ideal from a community > > perspective. Community controlled systems allow us to equitably share these > > resources. > > Request: > > To fulfill this requirement, the Apache Geronimo PMC is requesting the ASF > > infrastructure team to provide and host machines that can be used for this > > purpose. Initially, we would like to request two (2) machines that meet (as > > closely as possible) the specification below. However, we can see the need > > for 2 additional machines in the not too distant future. > > To fill in others, Joe B. and I have talked about this before - so > this doesn't come as a surprise to me. I've informed Joe that our > current data center does not have space for any new machines, so this > will require a build-out of a new data center. (Joe S. has looked > into this and it's about $500/mo for the data center that he houses > his personal setup at; we also know that we'd have to build out the > new data center - which we'd have to gather the costs for as well.) > > I assume building out a new data center is something we will need to do, > regardless? These machines would put us over the tipping point? > > > Have we determined whether the machines would be donated, or do we > need to purchase them? > > To give you an idea, to meet the specs you outlined for a Dell > PowerEdge 1950 III is about $4500/machine (and that's at 2.5GHz not > 3.0GHz - see below). We may be able to negotiate a lower price with > our Dell sales rep, but that's the ballpark figure per machine. > > My assumption was that the machines would be purchased by the ASF. > Community members have offered to donate some existing hardware. There was > also discussion about building out the hardware from scratch. Finally, there > has also been discussion of $ donations, but I think that's a separate > matter... > IMO, the more inline we are with current Infra practices, the better off > we'll be. I don't think that the existing hardware would meet the management > requirements needed to properly host them. Building up the machines might > save money in the short-term, but we probably lose in the long-term. We've > suffered through some efforts (GBuild) with non-standard hardware, cheap > (i.e. free) hosting, etc. Too frequently we've ended up with the equivalent > of boat anchors as machines waited to be rebooted/repaired, spotty network > reliability, etc. > I would prefer to not build servers by scratch. Self-builded hardware lack of support if something break. So I would prefer to use some prebuild servers ( Dell, Sun) > > Given that amount, I'd probably want to run authorization of these > machines by the Board once we settle upon a final proposal and cost. > So, it may take until the next Board meeting before I can get final > approval. > > Machine specs: > > - 8 core (two 3.0 GHz quad-core) > > How set is the 3.0GHz specification? The cost difference between, > say, the 2.5GHz (E5420) and 3.0GHz (E5450) is at least $1000/machine > extra. IMO, I doubt it is worth the differential. > > IMO, 2.5 GHz is fine. > > - 16 GB memory > > - two 750GB 7200 - rpm SATA 3GB/s disks > > In a RAID1 (mirrored config) or striped? > > I'd assumed striped, but others may have their own opinions. > > - DVD R/W (20x?) > > Does it really need to have DVD R/W? (Dell doesn't even sell a DVD RW > in their PowerEdge series.) > > Heh. No, not necessary. > > - rack mountable specification to work with ASF infra requirements > > - LOM or other features as necessary for ASF infra support > > - to be developer managed and maintained by the Apache Geronimo Team > > - Apache Geronimo would assume all responsibility for: > > - configuration > > - backup/recovery > > - secure access > > - Strictly limited to those Apache Geronimo committers with NDAs on > > file or additional Apache committers with NDAs and approved by Geronimo PMC. > > - full, admin access would be granted to ASF infra with reboot directions > > - At least 2 active Apache Geronimo co9mmitters (with NDA authorization) > > would identified to manage the machines. > > - Running Linux with something like Xen for 4 VM images per machine. We may > > increase the number of VM images if it is feasible. > > Is Ubuntu 8.04 sufficient, or does something special need to happen > for Xen? (I haven't looked into Xen lately.) > > I assume Ubuntu is the preferred Linux distribution for Infra? I don't have > any experience with it. I see that they choose KVM as their virtualization > technology. From a quick look, seems that Xen support is not too great. My > guess is that we can make Ubuntu/KVM work, but we should do some > investigating. I think G community members are more familiar with Suse, Red > Hat, and Xen. For Ubuntu we will not need any "Serviceplan". I think Ubuntu do a very good job on security updates etc (even if the last security problems like ssl are not really "amazing"). So +1 for Ubuntu. > > > - We would require both ssh and VNC access to the VMs. > > I don't know if or how Xen supports VNC, but I guess so... =) > > - It is not yet decided if we would use NAT to access the VMs or public IP > > addresses. Is there are recommendation from ASF Infra? > > It depends how secure the Xen instances are. > > If we need to have a partitioned network, we may need to get an extra > switch and stuff. > > - Automation will most likely be added to run builds, execute tests, and > > produce reports. > > - Capability to manually run tests on demand would also be supported. > > Thanks. -- justin > > Just me 2 cents... bye Norman
