[7984] in Release_7.7_team
Re: Linerva transition meeting today
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Geoffrey Thomas)
Wed Jan 29 03:57:18 2014
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 03:57:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Geoffrey Thomas <geofft@MIT.EDU>
To: Jonathon Weiss <jweiss@MIT.EDU>
cc: Alex Dehnert <adehnert@MIT.EDU>, Alex Chernyakhovsky <achernya@MIT.EDU>,
"linerva@mit.edu" <linerva@MIT.EDU>, release-team@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1401282108370.6544@the-other-woman.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1401290321280.17135@home-on-the-dome.MIT.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
We had a Linerva crash ("openafs: afs_InvalidateAllSegments tdc count"),
so we went ahead with the banner solution on our end because it didn't
seem to make sense to those of us who were responding (adehnert and me) to
bring the service back up. We'll shortly set up an sshd on an alternate
port (2701), primarily for root logins but also in case anyone needs
to check something from real-linerva.
We'll send linerva-announce mail shortly. I think jdreed said he was
working on a KB article; once we have that we'll update the MOTDs and the
linerva website to point there.
--
Geoffrey Thomas
geofft@mit.edu
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014, Jonathon Weiss wrote:
> 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
>
