[7982] in Release_7.7_team
Re: Linerva transition meeting today
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jonathan D Reed)
Tue Jan 28 20:03:37 2014
From: Jonathan D Reed <jdreed@MIT.EDU>
To: Jonathon Weiss <jweiss@MIT.EDU>
CC: Alexander Chernyakhovsky <achernya@MIT.EDU>,
Alexander W Dehnert
<adehnert@MIT.EDU>,
"linerva@mit.edu" <linerva@MIT.EDU>,
"release-team@mit.edu" <release-team@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 01:03:20 +0000
Message-ID: <0D42EF76-2F1C-4CA1-8D4A-0158EF739EE8@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1401281800440.18657@novgorod.mit.edu>
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <9D61E6857439204CA37CB4AFB9753EFF@exchange.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
One additional point, which got discussed prior to the meeting, but did not get brought up:
- If e-mailing individual dialup users won’t work out or is an extra step, could we have a single opt-in list (e.g. “dialup-announce”, possibly pre-populated with linerva-announce) that gets mail prior to scheduled maintenance? The MOTD could mention this list, just like linerva’s MOTD mentions linerva-announce. (c.f. how mail used to go to cfyi BITD.)
-Jon
On Jan 28, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Alex Dehnert <adehnert@MIT.EDU> wrote:
> Having not heard heard objections from the Linerva side, we're okay with the banner plan.
>
> Geoff points out it might be easier to have Linerva serve the redirect, since then we don't need to deal with coordinating a DNS update, moving keys around, etc.. I don't think keeping Linerva-banner running for a while is going to be big problem.
>
> ~~Alex
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Alex Chernyakhovsky wrote:
>
>> I'm fine with both.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Alex Dehnert <adehnert@mit.edu> wrote:
>>> I'm fine with the banner plan, with either Linerva or an Ops VM serving the
>>> error. I assume Geoff is as well. I think achernya and Anders are the main
>>> other people who have been caring about this -- are you okay with that plan?
>>>
>>> ~~Alex
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Jonathon Weiss wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've confirmed with Garry that he's fine with this plan. He did
>>>> suggest that we move the linerva/linux names to an ops run VM that
>>>> served the re-direct messages. I would expect ops to run that VM at
>>>> least through the end of the term. That would leave you with more
>>>> flexibility about recycling the current VM and hypervisor.
>>>>
>>>> Because of the tight schedule of transitioning on Thrusday or Friday,
>>>> (and the difference in the work required for the different plans) I'd
>>>> like to know if there are any problems with this approach by 6pm
>>>> today, if at all possible.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Alex Dehnert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We met with Jonathon today to discuss how we would carry out the
>>>>> linerva->athena.dialup transition. Tentative plan, assuming that the rest of
>>>>> Ops and Linerva maintainers are okay with it, is to replace the Linerva
>>>>> sshds with something that rejects your login with a message about
>>>>> athena.dialup, and to run a high-port sshd for recovering dead sessions (aka
>>>>> plan 2 in the notes).
>>>>>
>>>>> I've attached limited notes from the meeting.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~~Alex
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
