[7983] in Release_7.7_team
Re: Linerva transition meeting today
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jonathon Weiss)
Tue Jan 28 21:14:07 2014
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 21:13:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Jonathon Weiss <jweiss@MIT.EDU>
To: Alex Dehnert <adehnert@MIT.EDU>
cc: Alex Chernyakhovsky <achernya@MIT.EDU>,
"linerva@mit.edu" <linerva@MIT.EDU>, release-team@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1401281800440.18657@novgorod.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1401282108370.6544@the-other-woman.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Great, thanks, I will proceed with that solution in mind.
I think Geoff's argument makes sense in the short term, but that in
the long term it makes more sense to transition the name to an ops run
server. How does this sound: deploy banners on linerva at some
pre-determined time on Thursday (1pm?). That puts it inside linerva's
declared window, and since I don't have to do a lot of work on the
dialups to configure things Thursday rather than Friday shouldn't be a
problem. Then sometime in the next week we can have a pre-set up ops
run VM, and transfer the DNS seamlessly and without time pressure.
Jonathon
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Alex Dehnert 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Jonathon
