Re: Moving the wiki
On 10/28, Brian Proffitt wrote: - Original Message - From: Karsten Wade kw...@redhat.com To: infra@ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:44:00 PM Subject: Re: Moving the wiki -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/22/2014 11:19 AM, Michael Scherer wrote: I still think the easiest way is to host our own setup. Two notes: * While there is definitely increased work for the Infra team in bringing it back from OpenShift, it also takes away some of the work being done to keep the OpenShift instance running well. * We can always move back about as easily, such as when service features are at parity. One of my concerns about OpenShift is that it now doesn't fit into the rest of the Infra scheme. If we're maintaining everything with Foreman/Puppet, for example, wouldn't it be a bit easier to bring the wiki server in to the same scheme? It's like the problems we have with linode01.ovirt.org -- it's outside of the rest of the process Infra uses, so it's more likely problems will build up there until they get noticed. - - Karsten - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlRH+vAACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEHEOwCgnGCFXO7tKVAoCM4YfkM0MYSs Er8AniDXc74R7QYk7s62s+nxZ1sTnn37 =IgIn -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra At Barak's request, I wanted to outline what should be the next phase for oVirt.org, which may render this discussion moot. At least, the discussion of shifting away from OpenShift, based on MediaWiki. We may want to migrate away for other reasons, but this will probably not be one of them. oVirt.org is currently a MediaWiki site, and as such has a lot of (expected) user collaboration. But that collaboration is not terribly organized, and has no version control whatsoever. This makes it impossible for a group like Content Services to scrape documentation content into their process, and the end-user experience is also sub-optimal. As an alternative, the OSAS design team wants oVirt.org to move over to Middleman-based when we revamp the site later this year. This would mean that content would be stored on GitHub as markdown (MD) or HTML files, and then Middleman would be used to edit content locally as well as deploy onto the production site. This is currently how projectatomic.io handles Clearly, moving from a wiki to something static like a Middleman/GitHub solution is drastic, but Garrett LeSage and Tuomas Kuosmanen have come up with an idea: prose.io is a third-party WYSIWYG editor that ties directly in to GitHub repos. We will have links on the new oVirt.org site for each page or section of a page that would open up the source content for that page/section in prose.io, where a user could then edit the content and save it with a simple GUI that would bypass the complexity of git commands. Depending on the user's permissions, the edited content would be deployed immediately on the site or held as a pull request for later approval. Feels strange to me having a project outside gerrit, that means having to setup and manage user acces also on github. Is there a way to use gerrit as base repo and only replicate to github as we currently do with other projects? Is the requirement of a web ui a strict one? Because I really like the idea of having the docs managed as code (reviews, git history and even ci) An alternative to prose.io that Garrett has also proposed is bolting on an admin UI for editing blog posts using various existing components (mainly for rich editing), so the entire thing could be done via a browser-based interface (only available when running in development). From a user perspective, the experience is no different than using a wiki. If we use prose.io, will have to have a GitHub account, but for our users, that's not much or a hurdle, since they would have to have a MediaWiki account on oVirt.org anyway. There are issues to narrow down with this plan (like how do oVirt.org users add new pages?), but so far, it feels like a good solution and a positive step away from MediaWiki. Peace, Brian -- Brian Proffitt Community Liaison oVirt Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com Phone: +1 574 383 9BKP IRC: bkp @ OFTC ___ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra -- David Caro Red Hat S.L. Continuous Integration Engineer - EMEA ENG Virtualization RD Tel.: +420 532 294 605 Email: dc...@redhat.com Web: www.redhat.com RHT Global #: 82-62605 pgpLf3N7VVpz3
Re: Moving the wiki
Right now, the focus on GitHub-based solution is a direct result of planning to use Prose.io; that's the only repo system that Prose.io works with, as far as I know. And, to answer your other question, a Web-based GUI is critical to making this work. Otherwise will will introduce git (or gerrit) commands and functions into the website-editing process, which would create a much higher barrier to entry. That said, it does appear that Garrett is working on a home-grown solution similar to Prose.io as I metnioned earlier, which *may* be able to work with alternate repos, such as Bitbucket or even gerrit. BKP - Original Message - From: David Caro dcaro...@redhat.com To: Brian Proffitt bprof...@redhat.com Cc: infra@ovirt.org Sent: Friday, November 7, 2014 6:13:48 AM Subject: Re: Moving the wiki On 10/28, Brian Proffitt wrote: - Original Message - From: Karsten Wade kw...@redhat.com To: infra@ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:44:00 PM Subject: Re: Moving the wiki -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/22/2014 11:19 AM, Michael Scherer wrote: I still think the easiest way is to host our own setup. Two notes: * While there is definitely increased work for the Infra team in bringing it back from OpenShift, it also takes away some of the work being done to keep the OpenShift instance running well. * We can always move back about as easily, such as when service features are at parity. One of my concerns about OpenShift is that it now doesn't fit into the rest of the Infra scheme. If we're maintaining everything with Foreman/Puppet, for example, wouldn't it be a bit easier to bring the wiki server in to the same scheme? It's like the problems we have with linode01.ovirt.org -- it's outside of the rest of the process Infra uses, so it's more likely problems will build up there until they get noticed. - - Karsten - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlRH+vAACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEHEOwCgnGCFXO7tKVAoCM4YfkM0MYSs Er8AniDXc74R7QYk7s62s+nxZ1sTnn37 =IgIn -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra At Barak's request, I wanted to outline what should be the next phase for oVirt.org, which may render this discussion moot. At least, the discussion of shifting away from OpenShift, based on MediaWiki. We may want to migrate away for other reasons, but this will probably not be one of them. oVirt.org is currently a MediaWiki site, and as such has a lot of (expected) user collaboration. But that collaboration is not terribly organized, and has no version control whatsoever. This makes it impossible for a group like Content Services to scrape documentation content into their process, and the end-user experience is also sub-optimal. As an alternative, the OSAS design team wants oVirt.org to move over to Middleman-based when we revamp the site later this year. This would mean that content would be stored on GitHub as markdown (MD) or HTML files, and then Middleman would be used to edit content locally as well as deploy onto the production site. This is currently how projectatomic.io handles Clearly, moving from a wiki to something static like a Middleman/GitHub solution is drastic, but Garrett LeSage and Tuomas Kuosmanen have come up with an idea: prose.io is a third-party WYSIWYG editor that ties directly in to GitHub repos. We will have links on the new oVirt.org site for each page or section of a page that would open up the source content for that page/section in prose.io, where a user could then edit the content and save it with a simple GUI that would bypass the complexity of git commands. Depending on the user's permissions, the edited content would be deployed immediately on the site or held as a pull request for later approval. Feels strange to me having a project outside gerrit, that means having to setup and manage user acces also on github. Is there a way to use gerrit as base repo and only replicate to github as we currently do with other projects? Is the requirement of a web ui a strict one? Because I really like the idea of having the docs managed as code (reviews, git history and even ci) An alternative to prose.io that Garrett has also proposed is bolting on an admin UI for editing blog posts using various existing components (mainly for rich editing), so the entire thing could be done via a browser-based interface (only available when running in development). From a user perspective, the experience
Re: Moving the wiki
On 11/07, Brian Proffitt wrote: Right now, the focus on GitHub-based solution is a direct result of planning to use Prose.io; that's the only repo system that Prose.io works with, as far as I know. And, to answer your other question, a Web-based GUI is critical to making this work. Otherwise will will introduce git (or gerrit) commands and functions into the website-editing process, which would create a much higher barrier to entry. That said, it does appear that Garrett is working on a home-grown solution similar to Prose.io as I metnioned earlier, which *may* be able to work with alternate repos, such as Bitbucket or even gerrit. I prefer this solution if it fits. @Garret, can I get an early preview or something? I'd like to start using it asap and solving any issues. We can start with some infra docs or something. btw. Would it be an issue if we host the static pages on gh-pages? I'm trying to push this because I'm writing some infra docs about the phx lab and if ready I'd like to create a prove of concept for the flow. BKP - Original Message - From: David Caro dcaro...@redhat.com To: Brian Proffitt bprof...@redhat.com Cc: infra@ovirt.org Sent: Friday, November 7, 2014 6:13:48 AM Subject: Re: Moving the wiki On 10/28, Brian Proffitt wrote: - Original Message - From: Karsten Wade kw...@redhat.com To: infra@ovirt.org Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 9:44:00 PM Subject: Re: Moving the wiki -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/22/2014 11:19 AM, Michael Scherer wrote: I still think the easiest way is to host our own setup. Two notes: * While there is definitely increased work for the Infra team in bringing it back from OpenShift, it also takes away some of the work being done to keep the OpenShift instance running well. * We can always move back about as easily, such as when service features are at parity. One of my concerns about OpenShift is that it now doesn't fit into the rest of the Infra scheme. If we're maintaining everything with Foreman/Puppet, for example, wouldn't it be a bit easier to bring the wiki server in to the same scheme? It's like the problems we have with linode01.ovirt.org -- it's outside of the rest of the process Infra uses, so it's more likely problems will build up there until they get noticed. - - Karsten - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlRH+vAACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEHEOwCgnGCFXO7tKVAoCM4YfkM0MYSs Er8AniDXc74R7QYk7s62s+nxZ1sTnn37 =IgIn -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra At Barak's request, I wanted to outline what should be the next phase for oVirt.org, which may render this discussion moot. At least, the discussion of shifting away from OpenShift, based on MediaWiki. We may want to migrate away for other reasons, but this will probably not be one of them. oVirt.org is currently a MediaWiki site, and as such has a lot of (expected) user collaboration. But that collaboration is not terribly organized, and has no version control whatsoever. This makes it impossible for a group like Content Services to scrape documentation content into their process, and the end-user experience is also sub-optimal. As an alternative, the OSAS design team wants oVirt.org to move over to Middleman-based when we revamp the site later this year. This would mean that content would be stored on GitHub as markdown (MD) or HTML files, and then Middleman would be used to edit content locally as well as deploy onto the production site. This is currently how projectatomic.io handles Clearly, moving from a wiki to something static like a Middleman/GitHub solution is drastic, but Garrett LeSage and Tuomas Kuosmanen have come up with an idea: prose.io is a third-party WYSIWYG editor that ties directly in to GitHub repos. We will have links on the new oVirt.org site for each page or section of a page that would open up the source content for that page/section in prose.io, where a user could then edit the content and save it with a simple GUI that would bypass the complexity of git commands. Depending on the user's permissions, the edited content would be deployed immediately on the site or held as a pull request for later approval. Feels strange to me having a project outside gerrit, that means having to setup and manage user acces also on github. Is there a way to use gerrit as base repo and only replicate
Re: Moving the wiki
Le lundi 20 octobre 2014 à 11:05 -0400, Barak Korren a écrit : There has been some talk recently about moving the ovirt.org wiki to a dedicated VM in the PHX data-center. I would like to open this up to some discussion. Here is the current situation as far as I could gather, more info and comment are welcome. What do we have now --- MediaWiki (Which version? eedri told me its a rather old one) 1.18 ( or 1.19 ) PHP (Which version?) 5.3.3 MySQL 5.1 All running in a single (?) 'large' OpenShift gear. yes Our OpenShift account is classified as 'silver' (is it?) thereby granting us gears with 6GB storage instead of 1GB) yes. I think we even already have 10G Why do we want to migrate? -- We occasionally have a problem where the site goes down. This seems to be caused by one of: 1. The OpenShift gear runs out of space 2. The MySQL DB gets stuck with no errors in the logs (Does restarting it resolve it?) it usually was out of memory issue. besides the problem, one reason to go to a more traditional setup for me is that, being traditional, we have more freedom. For example, installing varnish directly, having access to log without a middleman, ease of backup. And the capacity to use vanilla mediawiki. Why not to migrate? --- 1. Migrating the wiki to PHX VM will make the infra team have to manage the wiki hosting infrastructure. While one may claim that this is not complicated and that this work needs to also be done when the wiki is hosted on OpenShift, there are still many things that the OpenShift maintainers do for us such as: - Keeping the webservers updated there is just yum upgrade -y to do. I do not see that much as a hindrance. - Managing selinux There is nothing to manage, selinux work out of the box on RHEL. Also, due to the nature of openshift, the policy will only protect the host, but you would still be able to access network and this kind access. While with our own setup, we can have a tailored policy or firewall. - Enablign automatic scale-up We have no scale up for that, and due to mediawiki itself, we either have to patch it to not use the filesystem ( people suggested to use s3 ), or wait until fs is shared on openshift. 2. There are security concerns with having a public-facing (outdated?) PHP application running on a VM in the same network where our build and CI servers run. (I might be too paranoid here, having had one of my own sites defaced recently, but OpenShift makes it easy to create a new gear and git push the code to get back up and running, with our own VM, forensics and cleanup might be more complicated) I do not see how openshift will be easier. We can make a snapshot of the VM in ovirt too, afaik, so the forensic wouldn't be harder ( and in fact, would preserve the memory, which is rather important ). Known infra issues with existing configuration -- 1. The MySQL DB was setup without 'innodb_file_per_table' turned on, this can impact DB performance. To resolve this, one need to dump and import the entire DB. Things we can try (Besides migrating) - 1. Place ovirt.org behind a caching reverse-proxy CDN like cloudflare, that can mask some of our downtime. 2. Dump and import the DB to rebuild and optimize the DB files we need to have a bit more space to operate, that's the issue. 3. Rebuild the wiki in a new gear to get rid of possibly accumulating cruft 4. Upgrade the MySQL to 5.5 (Or whatever latest supported by OpenShift) We can't do that easily. 5. Upgrade MediaWiki We would have to rediff some of the patchs, I would rather start from scratch. 6. Add a redundant MySQL/Wiki server using MySQL replication Not working due to gears isolation. IE, 2 gears cannot communicate that easily. This would be doable with a special embedded cartridge. 7. Trim the wiki history (AFAIK MediaWiki saves every edit ever, but one can maybe use export/import to get rid of some) Why drop history, that's like dropping git history :/ 8. Try to come up with a way to spread the Wiki across multiple OpenShift gears Rather hard to do, especially since we are not root. 9. Tune DB parameters (is it possible to do on OpenShift?) No, since the mysql is managed by openshift we are not root. I eagerly await your comments, I still think the easiest way is to host our own setup. -- Michael Scherer Open Source and Standards, Sysadmin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
Re: Moving the wiki
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/22/2014 11:19 AM, Michael Scherer wrote: I still think the easiest way is to host our own setup. Two notes: * While there is definitely increased work for the Infra team in bringing it back from OpenShift, it also takes away some of the work being done to keep the OpenShift instance running well. * We can always move back about as easily, such as when service features are at parity. One of my concerns about OpenShift is that it now doesn't fit into the rest of the Infra scheme. If we're maintaining everything with Foreman/Puppet, for example, wouldn't it be a bit easier to bring the wiki server in to the same scheme? It's like the problems we have with linode01.ovirt.org -- it's outside of the rest of the process Infra uses, so it's more likely problems will build up there until they get noticed. - - Karsten - -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade.^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff http://TheOpenSourceWay.org\ http://community.redhat.com @quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlRH+vAACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEHEOwCgnGCFXO7tKVAoCM4YfkM0MYSs Er8AniDXc74R7QYk7s62s+nxZ1sTnn37 =IgIn -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Infra mailing list Infra@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra
