Hi Mike!
On 05/10/2007 09:04 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
We need a new web lead volunteer. Some people have been working on it
from time to time. We need someone who can log in and fix the account
system when its down and knows how the wiki works. We have a lot of
people doing a lot of things b
On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:26:43 -0500 (CDT), Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Other than w3c validation failing nothing is broken. an end user goes to
> view the repoview pages they see the correct thing.
That's far from a good reason to not fix it nevertheless. Afterall, part
of the development includes m
On Thu, 10 May 2007 10:18:56 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > machine. Who decides on what packages from that mysterious private repo
> > are "supported" on that machine or not? Seth?
> >
> Anyone with admin access to that box. If someone wants to install the
> RPM on that box and make sure it
Oliver Falk wrote:
Hi Mike!
On 05/10/2007 09:04 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
We need a new web lead volunteer. Some people have been working on
it from time to time. We need someone who can log in and fix the
account system when its down and knows how the wiki works. We have a
lot of people doi
We've got a lot of prep work to do before Fedora 7 launches. I'd like
to compile a list so if anything is missing let me know:
1) Static page content: Work with duffy, karsten, ricky and the websites
team to create a nice looking static page. Even better would be getting
this page into plone
The operating system is detecting 1GB only in each server, sometimes starts
swaping which is really not good.
The theory behind Apache is really simple, more memory = more hits/sec
without queueing requests
Paulo
On 5/11/07, Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paulo Santos wrote:
> Mike,
Hey Mike,
3) Proxy server upgrades. Right now our proxy servers are running stock
RHEL4. We've been meaning to upgrade them to RHEL5 for a while now but
they are on a different network segment then the rest of our hardware
and as such we cannot easily pxe boot them (it would involve a request
Damian Myerscough wrote:
Hey Mike,
3) Proxy server upgrades. Right now our proxy servers are running stock
RHEL4. We've been meaning to upgrade them to RHEL5 for a while now but
they are on a different network segment then the rest of our hardware
and as such we cannot easily pxe boot them (i
Paulo Santos wrote:
Mike,
Is it possible to get 1GB extra ram for each Proxy and APP server ?
This would double the amount of hits that we can sustain, in the
webserver
point of view.
Possibly, I'll look into it. The issue is I don't know how some of
these servers are already configured so
I would also like to volunteer myself, since i already know the
infrastructure and the procedures that we use in the team,
My main concern is that sometimes i may not have the amount of time needed
to devout my full atention to it, when its needed.
So with lead or no lead, i can/will always help a
Mike,
Is it possible to get 1GB extra ram for each Proxy and APP server ?
This would double the amount of hits that we can sustain, in the webserver
point of view.
Paulo
On 5/11/07, Mike McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We've got a lot of prep work to do before Fedora 7 launches. I'd like
The RedHat Load balancing clustering tool (piranha) might looks a bit
complex, but in reality, it's just a fancy wrapper around ipvsadm which is
the user-space tool for the kernel traffic director. I havent played with
Nth module, but ipvsadm is probably more tested.
So, we don't have a hardware b
Hey Mike,
I have seen:
if you want to balance the load to the 3 addresses 10.0.0.5, 10.0.0.6
and 10.0.0.7, then you can do as follows :
# iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -m nth --counter 7 --every 3
--packet 0 -j SNAT --to-source 10.0.0.5
# iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -m nth -
Ahmed Kamal wrote:
The RedHat Load balancing clustering tool (piranha) might looks a bit
complex, but in reality, it's just a fancy wrapper around ipvsadm
which is
the user-space tool for the kernel traffic director. I havent played with
Nth module, but ipvsadm is probably more tested.
So, we d
Damian Myerscough wrote:
Hey Mike,
I have seen:
if you want to balance the load to the 3 addresses 10.0.0.5, 10.0.0.6
and 10.0.0.7, then you can do as follows :
# iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -m nth --counter 7 --every 3
--packet 0 -j SNAT --to-source 10.0.0.5
# iptables -t nat -A PO
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 09:51:42AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> We've got a lot of prep work to do before Fedora 7 launches. I'd like to
> compile a list so if anything is missing let me know:
>
> [...]
>
> What am I missing?
Bodhi.
I have a test instance running on publictest2[0] that peop
H, I am not 100% sure when a box goes down. I believe it would
still route the
traffic to the dead box however if you set the --every 1 you wouldn't
notice too much.
It would give us enough time I reckon to get the box back online or we
could just remove
it from the iptables until the box cam
On May 11, 2007, at 7:51 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
3) Proxy server upgrades.
One easy upgrade would be to use perlbal instead of apache/
mod_proxy. It will use less memory, be able to sustain more
connections, do error handling and better balance the load between
the backend servers.
I'
18 matches
Mail list logo
