[Discuss] Spice for a physical server?

[Peter Jalajas]

It looks like that's a transient issue, perhaps soon to be resolved:
  http://danielgibbs.co.uk/2013/02/x2goserver-4-0-0-0-4-1-dependancy-issue/
It's worth the wait; x2go is quite good.

> --
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:50:54 -0400
> From: John Abreau
> To: Peter Jalajas
> Cc: discuss 
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?
>
> I tried to install x2goserver, but it fails to install:
>
>> Error: Package: nxagent-3.5.0.17-3.1.x86_64 (X11_RemoteDesktop_x2go)
>>   Requires: xorg-x11-fonts-core
>
> Apparently "xorg-x11-fonts-core" is a SuSE package that doesn't exist on
> CentOS 6,
> and x2goserver won't install without it.
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?

[John Abreau]

I just tried freenx-server on the remote end and the standard NX client
downloaded from nomachine.com on the client end.

Performance is excellent; it feels as responsive as a local connection.



On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Jerry Feldman  wrote:

> I think Spice is a better solution for you if we can figure out how to set
> up a spice server. ]
> You have a low bandwidth connection, and the Spice protocol places a lot
> of the X stuff in the client rather than the comm line.
> http://www.server-world.info/**en/note?os=CentOS_6&p=kvm&f=8
>
> Spice is supported by CentOS and Fedora.
>
>
> On 03/21/2013 03:50 PM, John Abreau wrote:
>
>> I tried to install x2goserver, but it fails to install:
>>
>>  Error: Package: nxagent-3.5.0.17-3.1.x86_64 (X11_RemoteDesktop_x2go)
>>>Requires: xorg-x11-fonts-core
>>>
>> Apparently "xorg-x11-fonts-core" is a SuSE package that doesn't exist on
>> CentOS 6,
>> and x2goserver won't install without it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Peter Jalajas 
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi John,
>>>
>>> I like x2go, FreeNX, and NX, in that order.
>>>
>>> Let me know if you have any questions about them.
>>> Pete
>>>
>>>  --**--**
 --

 Message: 1
 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:11:35 -0400
 From: John Abreau
 To: BLU Discuss 
 Subject: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?

 I was interested in trying out spice as an alternative to vnc, after
 hearing that it uses much less bandwidth than vnc and therefore gives
 far
 better performance.

 However, a google search is only turning up links about using spice to
 connect to virtual machines.

 Is is possible to use spice to connect to a regular, non-virtual server

>>> in
>>>
 order to use a graphical display on a remote server?

 The servers I want to connect to run CentOS 6.x.


 --
 John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix

 --

 Message: 2
 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 07:19:27 -0400
 From: Jerry Feldman
 To: discuss@blu.org
 Subject: Re: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?
 On 03/21/2013 12:11 AM, John Abreau wrote:

> I was interested in trying out spice as an alternative to vnc, after
> hearing that it uses much less bandwidth than vnc and therefore gives
>
 far
>>>
 better performance.
>
> However, a google search is only turning up links about using spice to
> connect to virtual machines.
>
> Is is possible to use spice to connect to a regular, non-virtual server
>
 in
>>>
 order to use a graphical display on a remote server?
>
> The servers I want to connect to run CentOS 6.x.
>
>
>  Ditto except I want to be able to run a spice client on Windows 7. I
 currently run Thunderbird under X.
 --

 Message: 5
 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:16:41 -0400
 From: Rich Pieri
 To: BLU Discuss 
 Subject: Re: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?
 --On Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:11 AM -0400 John Abreau
   wrote:

  Is is possible to use spice to connect to a regular, non-virtual server
>
 in
>>>
 order to use a graphical display on a remote server?
>
 SPICE is not a remote/virtual desktop system like VNC or RDP. It is a

>>> video
>>>
 driver that talks to a SPICE server compiled into QEMU. It may be

>>> possible
>>>
 to create a SPICE driver that incorporates the SPICE server component
 directly but such a thing does not currently exist that I can quickly

>>> find.
>>>
 --
 Rich P.


  __**_
>>> Discuss mailing list
>>> Discuss@blu.org
>>> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/**listinfo/discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Jerry Feldman 
> Boston Linux and Unix
> PGP key id:3BC1EB90
> PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66  C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90
>
>
> __**_
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/**listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix
Email j...@blu.org / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0xD5C7B5D9
PGP-Key-Fingerprint 72 FB 39 4F 3C 3B D6 5B E0 C8 5A 6E F1 2C BE 99
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?

[Rich Pieri]

Turns out that there is a standalone SPICE server called Xspice. It's in 
the xorg-x11-drv-qxl component.


--
Rich P.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?

[Jerry Feldman]

I think Spice is a better solution for you if we can figure out how to 
set up a spice server. ]
You have a low bandwidth connection, and the Spice protocol places a lot 
of the X stuff in the client rather than the comm line.

http://www.server-world.info/en/note?os=CentOS_6&p=kvm&f=8

Spice is supported by CentOS and Fedora.

On 03/21/2013 03:50 PM, John Abreau wrote:

I tried to install x2goserver, but it fails to install:


Error: Package: nxagent-3.5.0.17-3.1.x86_64 (X11_RemoteDesktop_x2go)
   Requires: xorg-x11-fonts-core

Apparently "xorg-x11-fonts-core" is a SuSE package that doesn't exist on
CentOS 6,
and x2goserver won't install without it.




On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Peter Jalajas  wrote:


Hi John,

I like x2go, FreeNX, and NX, in that order.

Let me know if you have any questions about them.
Pete


--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:11:35 -0400
From: John Abreau
To: BLU Discuss 
Subject: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?

I was interested in trying out spice as an alternative to vnc, after
hearing that it uses much less bandwidth than vnc and therefore gives far
better performance.

However, a google search is only turning up links about using spice to
connect to virtual machines.

Is is possible to use spice to connect to a regular, non-virtual server

in

order to use a graphical display on a remote server?

The servers I want to connect to run CentOS 6.x.


--
John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix

--

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 07:19:27 -0400
From: Jerry Feldman
To: discuss@blu.org
Subject: Re: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?
On 03/21/2013 12:11 AM, John Abreau wrote:

I was interested in trying out spice as an alternative to vnc, after
hearing that it uses much less bandwidth than vnc and therefore gives

far

better performance.

However, a google search is only turning up links about using spice to
connect to virtual machines.

Is is possible to use spice to connect to a regular, non-virtual server

in

order to use a graphical display on a remote server?

The servers I want to connect to run CentOS 6.x.



Ditto except I want to be able to run a spice client on Windows 7. I
currently run Thunderbird under X.
--

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:16:41 -0400
From: Rich Pieri
To: BLU Discuss 
Subject: Re: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?
--On Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:11 AM -0400 John Abreau
  wrote:


Is is possible to use spice to connect to a regular, non-virtual server

in

order to use a graphical display on a remote server?

SPICE is not a remote/virtual desktop system like VNC or RDP. It is a

video

driver that talks to a SPICE server compiled into QEMU. It may be

possible

to create a SPICE driver that incorporates the SPICE server component
directly but such a thing does not currently exist that I can quickly

find.

--
Rich P.



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss







--
Jerry Feldman 
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:3BC1EB90
PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66  C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?

[John Abreau]

I tried to install x2goserver, but it fails to install:

> Error: Package: nxagent-3.5.0.17-3.1.x86_64 (X11_RemoteDesktop_x2go)
>   Requires: xorg-x11-fonts-core

Apparently "xorg-x11-fonts-core" is a SuSE package that doesn't exist on
CentOS 6,
and x2goserver won't install without it.




On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Peter Jalajas  wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> I like x2go, FreeNX, and NX, in that order.
>
> Let me know if you have any questions about them.
> Pete
>
> > --
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:11:35 -0400
> > From: John Abreau
> > To: BLU Discuss 
> > Subject: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?
> >
> > I was interested in trying out spice as an alternative to vnc, after
> > hearing that it uses much less bandwidth than vnc and therefore gives far
> > better performance.
> >
> > However, a google search is only turning up links about using spice to
> > connect to virtual machines.
> >
> > Is is possible to use spice to connect to a regular, non-virtual server
> in
> > order to use a graphical display on a remote server?
> >
> > The servers I want to connect to run CentOS 6.x.
> >
> >
> > --
> > John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 07:19:27 -0400
> > From: Jerry Feldman
> > To: discuss@blu.org
> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?
>
> > On 03/21/2013 12:11 AM, John Abreau wrote:
> >> I was interested in trying out spice as an alternative to vnc, after
> >> hearing that it uses much less bandwidth than vnc and therefore gives
> far
> >> better performance.
> >>
> >> However, a google search is only turning up links about using spice to
> >> connect to virtual machines.
> >>
> >> Is is possible to use spice to connect to a regular, non-virtual server
> in
> >> order to use a graphical display on a remote server?
> >>
> >> The servers I want to connect to run CentOS 6.x.
> >>
> >>
> > Ditto except I want to be able to run a spice client on Windows 7. I
> > currently run Thunderbird under X.
> > --
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:16:41 -0400
> > From: Rich Pieri
> > To: BLU Discuss 
> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?
>
> > --On Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:11 AM -0400 John Abreau
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> Is is possible to use spice to connect to a regular, non-virtual server
> in
> >> order to use a graphical display on a remote server?
> >
> > SPICE is not a remote/virtual desktop system like VNC or RDP. It is a
> video
> > driver that talks to a SPICE server compiled into QEMU. It may be
> possible
> > to create a SPICE driver that incorporates the SPICE server component
> > directly but such a thing does not currently exist that I can quickly
> find.
> >
> > --
> > Rich P.
> >
> >
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>



-- 
John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix
PGP KeyID: 32A492D8 / Email: abre...@gmail.com
PGP FP: 7834 AEC2 EFA3 565C A4B6  9BA4 0ACB AD85 32A4 92D8
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] AWS Linux server scaling question

[David Rosenstrauch]

Couple of suggestions:

1) We don't really use Micro instances for anything in production. 
Smallest instances we use generally are m1.large, and most of our boxes 
are m1.xlarge or bigger.


2) IIRC, most of the AMI's out of the box are not configured with swap 
space.  So if the box starts to max out on memory conceivably bad things 
can happen.  Might be something to look into changing.


HTH,

DR

On 03/21/2013 11:58 AM, Drew Van Zandt wrote:

Up front: While I'm solid on Linux for personal use, and use it daily, and
have been sysadmin for a tiny company with just one internal server, I've
never been what I consider a "real" sysadmin.

I'm working with an all-volunteer group trying to figure out what our
cheapest AWS setup to handle things for ~3500 users is.  Right now the
webserver, which is basically just a Wordpress install, is running on a
Micro instance.  When we released a half dozen documents that everyone
wanted right away last week, of course it fell over a couple of times,
(slow, nonresponsive, reboot needed once, etc.)  I joined the tech team
pretty much the day before this happened.

memcached was added sometime during the explosion.

We're regrouping for next time this happens, and given the limited admin
experience of everyone on the team, there are some disagreements on the
best approach.  I'll present a few of the options under discussion, if
anyone cares to comment I'd be happy to hear discussion.

Option A:
* Upgrade to a Small instance (1.7GB instead of 610MB)
* Tune apache prefork config so the max number of clients does not cause
much swapping at full load
* Tune Apache: FollowSymlinks, AllowOverrides None (symlinks is security
risk, accepting that)
* Add indexes for any SQL query WHERE clauses that are common to the setup
* Tune PHP and MySQL a bit for the limited available memory

Option B:
* Use several micro instances with load balancing
* Apache/PHP/SQL tuning identically per instance

Option C:
* Two Small instances
** One runs Apache/wordpress
** One runs MySQL and lighttpd for static files (lighttpd may be
unnecessary complexity)
** Each optimized as per A

Other items considered:
Amazon S3 for static files
AWS DB-specific instance for SQL
Medium instance
Varnish
113 other caching solutions

Based on making embedded Linux handle things with tiny, tiny memory models,
I'm inclined to think that A would suffice for the load I expect folks to
throw at it - the only reason even the Micro instance couldn't mostly
handle it is that it had stock settings on everything, no tuning at all.  A
Small instance is more than enough.

Based on having survive office politics for years, I'm inclined to think
that C is perfect, we're likely to get budget since Things Just Happened,
and it should be able to handle loads far beyond what I ever expect our
users to throw at it.  (Though we do get surges of 500+ users at high
activity for a few days just before conventions...I would expect C with
tuning to handle even that pretty gracefully.)

In either A or C I'm inclined to ask for an identical config but with Micro
instances for release prestaging/testing, I should be able to stress those
with just a script on my server, and test load handling - the Small version
should be strictly (and vastly) better than the prestaged test.

Are we thinking along the right lines?

*
Drew Van Zandt
Cam # US2010035593 (M:Liam Hopkins R: Bastian Rotgeld)
Domain Coordinator, MA-003-D.  Masquerade aVST
*
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] AWS Linux server scaling question

[Tim Lyons]

Drew,

While I'm by no means an expert when it comes to AWS (having only
just recently started to host in their environment myself), I do now
have a few months of experience and instances in multiple locations.
Most of my stuff is fairly static or non-web; however, I have been using
an assortment of their technologies including RDS (Relational Database)
to handle my MySQL needs - it works and takes the requirement 
to have to provide additonal Infrastructure to run an instance of MySQL
(which I was doing). Combined with VPC (Private Cloud) instances it
becomes a very secure & stable environment on which to deploy upon.  Of
course you'll have to make some other calls in regards to storage
(standard vs. Provisioned IOPS) and any additional features &
functionality your environment may require.

You may also want to consider looking at Nginx as your web engine.
It took me the longest time to start poking around with it and now, I
wonder why I ever hesitated.  Its lighter and cleaner than Apache and
in micro or small instances works perfectly with an exceptionally
small footprint.  I just Googled "nginx wordpress" and it seems
wordpress installations are not uncommon.

IMHO - the key to AWS is scalability and at any time if you need
additional capacity, you can simply spin up an instance, add a
load-balancer and grow.  Even if you end up with only a single small
EC2 instance using RDS, think and plan like you'll someday have 50
instances and look at setting up that way so you can easily grow.

Just my .02 - YMMV. ;-)

Regards,
--Tim


On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:58:11 -0400
Drew Van Zandt  wrote:

> Up front: While I'm solid on Linux for personal use, and use it
> daily, and have been sysadmin for a tiny company with just one
> internal server, I've never been what I consider a "real" sysadmin.
> 
> I'm working with an all-volunteer group trying to figure out what our
> cheapest AWS setup to handle things for ~3500 users is.  Right now the
> webserver, which is basically just a Wordpress install, is running on
> a Micro instance.  When we released a half dozen documents that
> everyone wanted right away last week, of course it fell over a couple
> of times, (slow, nonresponsive, reboot needed once, etc.)  I joined
> the tech team pretty much the day before this happened.
> 
> memcached was added sometime during the explosion.
> 
> We're regrouping for next time this happens, and given the limited
> admin experience of everyone on the team, there are some
> disagreements on the best approach.  I'll present a few of the
> options under discussion, if anyone cares to comment I'd be happy to
> hear discussion.
> 
> Option A:
> * Upgrade to a Small instance (1.7GB instead of 610MB)
> * Tune apache prefork config so the max number of clients does not
> cause much swapping at full load
> * Tune Apache: FollowSymlinks, AllowOverrides None (symlinks is
> security risk, accepting that)
> * Add indexes for any SQL query WHERE clauses that are common to the
> setup
> * Tune PHP and MySQL a bit for the limited available memory
> 
> Option B:
> * Use several micro instances with load balancing
> * Apache/PHP/SQL tuning identically per instance
> 
> Option C:
> * Two Small instances
> ** One runs Apache/wordpress
> ** One runs MySQL and lighttpd for static files (lighttpd may be
> unnecessary complexity)
> ** Each optimized as per A
> 
> Other items considered:
> Amazon S3 for static files
> AWS DB-specific instance for SQL
> Medium instance
> Varnish
> 113 other caching solutions
> 
> Based on making embedded Linux handle things with tiny, tiny memory
> models, I'm inclined to think that A would suffice for the load I
> expect folks to throw at it - the only reason even the Micro instance
> couldn't mostly handle it is that it had stock settings on
> everything, no tuning at all.  A Small instance is more than enough.
> 
> Based on having survive office politics for years, I'm inclined to
> think that C is perfect, we're likely to get budget since Things Just
> Happened, and it should be able to handle loads far beyond what I
> ever expect our users to throw at it.  (Though we do get surges of
> 500+ users at high activity for a few days just before
> conventions...I would expect C with tuning to handle even that pretty
> gracefully.)
> 
> In either A or C I'm inclined to ask for an identical config but with
> Micro instances for release prestaging/testing, I should be able to
> stress those with just a script on my server, and test load handling
> - the Small version should be strictly (and vastly) better than the
> prestaged test.
> 
> Are we thinking along the right lines?
> 
> *
> Drew Van Zandt
> Cam # US2010035593 (M:Liam Hopkins R: Bastian Rotgeld)
> Domain Coordinator, MA-003-D.  Masquerade aVST
> *
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 



-- 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Mail

Re: [Discuss] AWS Linux server scaling question

[Drew Van Zandt]

Addendum: In the future, the setup is likely to also run a Symfony site.

*
Drew Van Zandt
Cam # US2010035593 (M:Liam Hopkins R: Bastian Rotgeld)
Domain Coordinator, MA-003-D.  Masquerade aVST
*


On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Drew Van Zandt wrote:

> Micro   (610.0MB RAM, 1 CPU): $0.020 per hour
> Small(1.70GB RAM, 1 CPU): $0.060 per hour
> Medium (3.75GB RAM, 2 CPU): $0.120 per hour
>
> A typical Apache process on this server is taking 7-8% memory, 4% CPU per
> top.  MySQL (untuned) is pegging the CPU and 10% memory.  Note that the
> Micro instance can actually use 2 CPUs for brief moments, but the Small
> gets more cycles steady-state on its single CPU.  In other words, Micro
> gets something like 0.75 CPU, but can use it as 2 CPUs 30% of the time and
> 0.07 CPUs the rest.  Small is 1 CPU 100% of the time.
>
> *
> Drew Van Zandt
> Cam # US2010035593 (M:Liam Hopkins R: Bastian Rotgeld)
> Domain Coordinator, MA-003-D.  Masquerade aVST
> *
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Kent Borg  wrote:
>
>> On 03/21/2013 11:58 AM, Drew Van Zandt wrote:
>>
>>> trying to figure out what our cheapest AWS setup to handle things for
>>> ~3500 users is.
>>>
>>
>> What do the different options cost per month?
>>
>> -kb
>>
>> __**_
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss@blu.org
>> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/**listinfo/discuss
>>
>
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] AWS Linux server scaling question

[Drew Van Zandt]

Micro   (610.0MB RAM, 1 CPU): $0.020 per hour
Small(1.70GB RAM, 1 CPU): $0.060 per hour
Medium (3.75GB RAM, 2 CPU): $0.120 per hour

A typical Apache process on this server is taking 7-8% memory, 4% CPU per
top.  MySQL (untuned) is pegging the CPU and 10% memory.  Note that the
Micro instance can actually use 2 CPUs for brief moments, but the Small
gets more cycles steady-state on its single CPU.  In other words, Micro
gets something like 0.75 CPU, but can use it as 2 CPUs 30% of the time and
0.07 CPUs the rest.  Small is 1 CPU 100% of the time.

*
Drew Van Zandt
Cam # US2010035593 (M:Liam Hopkins R: Bastian Rotgeld)
Domain Coordinator, MA-003-D.  Masquerade aVST
*


On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Kent Borg  wrote:

> On 03/21/2013 11:58 AM, Drew Van Zandt wrote:
>
>> trying to figure out what our cheapest AWS setup to handle things for
>> ~3500 users is.
>>
>
> What do the different options cost per month?
>
> -kb
>
> __**_
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/**listinfo/discuss
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Discuss] Spice for a physical server?

[Peter Jalajas]

Hi John,

I like x2go, FreeNX, and NX, in that order.

Let me know if you have any questions about them.
Pete

> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 00:11:35 -0400
> From: John Abreau
> To: BLU Discuss 
> Subject: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?
>
> I was interested in trying out spice as an alternative to vnc, after
> hearing that it uses much less bandwidth than vnc and therefore gives far
> better performance.
>
> However, a google search is only turning up links about using spice to
> connect to virtual machines.
>
> Is is possible to use spice to connect to a regular, non-virtual server in
> order to use a graphical display on a remote server?
>
> The servers I want to connect to run CentOS 6.x.
>
>
> --
> John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix
>
> --
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 07:19:27 -0400
> From: Jerry Feldman
> To: discuss@blu.org
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?

> On 03/21/2013 12:11 AM, John Abreau wrote:
>> I was interested in trying out spice as an alternative to vnc, after
>> hearing that it uses much less bandwidth than vnc and therefore gives far
>> better performance.
>>
>> However, a google search is only turning up links about using spice to
>> connect to virtual machines.
>>
>> Is is possible to use spice to connect to a regular, non-virtual server in
>> order to use a graphical display on a remote server?
>>
>> The servers I want to connect to run CentOS 6.x.
>>
>>
> Ditto except I want to be able to run a spice client on Windows 7. I
> currently run Thunderbird under X.
> --
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:16:41 -0400
> From: Rich Pieri
> To: BLU Discuss 
> Subject: Re: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?

> --On Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:11 AM -0400 John Abreau
>  wrote:
>
>> Is is possible to use spice to connect to a regular, non-virtual server in
>> order to use a graphical display on a remote server?
>
> SPICE is not a remote/virtual desktop system like VNC or RDP. It is a video
> driver that talks to a SPICE server compiled into QEMU. It may be possible
> to create a SPICE driver that incorporates the SPICE server component
> directly but such a thing does not currently exist that I can quickly find.
>
> --
> Rich P.
>
>
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] AWS Linux server scaling question

[Kent Borg]

On 03/21/2013 11:58 AM, Drew Van Zandt wrote:

trying to figure out what our cheapest AWS setup to handle things for ~3500 
users is.


What do the different options cost per month?

-kb

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Discuss] AWS Linux server scaling question

[Drew Van Zandt]

Up front: While I'm solid on Linux for personal use, and use it daily, and
have been sysadmin for a tiny company with just one internal server, I've
never been what I consider a "real" sysadmin.

I'm working with an all-volunteer group trying to figure out what our
cheapest AWS setup to handle things for ~3500 users is.  Right now the
webserver, which is basically just a Wordpress install, is running on a
Micro instance.  When we released a half dozen documents that everyone
wanted right away last week, of course it fell over a couple of times,
(slow, nonresponsive, reboot needed once, etc.)  I joined the tech team
pretty much the day before this happened.

memcached was added sometime during the explosion.

We're regrouping for next time this happens, and given the limited admin
experience of everyone on the team, there are some disagreements on the
best approach.  I'll present a few of the options under discussion, if
anyone cares to comment I'd be happy to hear discussion.

Option A:
* Upgrade to a Small instance (1.7GB instead of 610MB)
* Tune apache prefork config so the max number of clients does not cause
much swapping at full load
* Tune Apache: FollowSymlinks, AllowOverrides None (symlinks is security
risk, accepting that)
* Add indexes for any SQL query WHERE clauses that are common to the setup
* Tune PHP and MySQL a bit for the limited available memory

Option B:
* Use several micro instances with load balancing
* Apache/PHP/SQL tuning identically per instance

Option C:
* Two Small instances
** One runs Apache/wordpress
** One runs MySQL and lighttpd for static files (lighttpd may be
unnecessary complexity)
** Each optimized as per A

Other items considered:
Amazon S3 for static files
AWS DB-specific instance for SQL
Medium instance
Varnish
113 other caching solutions

Based on making embedded Linux handle things with tiny, tiny memory models,
I'm inclined to think that A would suffice for the load I expect folks to
throw at it - the only reason even the Micro instance couldn't mostly
handle it is that it had stock settings on everything, no tuning at all.  A
Small instance is more than enough.

Based on having survive office politics for years, I'm inclined to think
that C is perfect, we're likely to get budget since Things Just Happened,
and it should be able to handle loads far beyond what I ever expect our
users to throw at it.  (Though we do get surges of 500+ users at high
activity for a few days just before conventions...I would expect C with
tuning to handle even that pretty gracefully.)

In either A or C I'm inclined to ask for an identical config but with Micro
instances for release prestaging/testing, I should be able to stress those
with just a script on my server, and test load handling - the Small version
should be strictly (and vastly) better than the prestaged test.

Are we thinking along the right lines?

*
Drew Van Zandt
Cam # US2010035593 (M:Liam Hopkins R: Bastian Rotgeld)
Domain Coordinator, MA-003-D.  Masquerade aVST
*
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] cluster DNS servers

[markw]

For the "caching" solution you don't need to cluster. For the service
issue, I use mydns with PostgreSQL.

So, using mydns to serve dns and using postgresql slow replication to keep
them in sync.


> Hello all,
>
> Any suggestion for the cluster DNS servers?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave
> ___
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>


___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?

[Rich Pieri]

--On Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:11 AM -0400 John Abreau 
 wrote:



Is is possible to use spice to connect to a regular, non-virtual server in
order to use a graphical display on a remote server?


SPICE is not a remote/virtual desktop system like VNC or RDP. It is a video 
driver that talks to a SPICE server compiled into QEMU. It may be possible 
to create a SPICE driver that incorporates the SPICE server component 
directly but such a thing does not currently exist that I can quickly find.


--
Rich P.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] cluster DNS servers

[Dan Ritter]

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 07:13:41AM -0700, Dave Peters wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> Any suggestion for the cluster DNS servers? 

Depends on your usage scenario. Are you doing auth, cache, or
both? How much data, how many requests? For customers of a DNS
service or for your employees?

-dsr-
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

[Discuss] cluster DNS servers

[Dave Peters]

Hello all,

Any suggestion for the cluster DNS servers? 


Thanks,

Dave
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [Discuss] Spice for a physical server?

[Jerry Feldman]

On 03/21/2013 12:11 AM, John Abreau wrote:

I was interested in trying out spice as an alternative to vnc, after
hearing that it uses much less bandwidth than vnc and therefore gives far
better performance.

However, a google search is only turning up links about using spice to
connect to virtual machines.

Is is possible to use spice to connect to a regular, non-virtual server in
order to use a graphical display on a remote server?

The servers I want to connect to run CentOS 6.x.


Ditto except I want to be able to run a spice client on Windows 7. I 
currently run Thunderbird under X.


--
Jerry Feldman 
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id:3BC1EB90
PGP Key fingerprint: 49E2 C52A FC5A A31F 8D66  C0AF 7CEA 30FC 3BC1 EB90

___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss