[1326] in SIPB-AFS-requests
server migration
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (marthag@MIT.EDU)
Sun Apr 17 02:02:46 1994
From: marthag@MIT.EDU
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 94 02:02:18 -0400
To: mhpower@MIT.EDU
Cc: ghudson@MIT.EDU, sorokin@MIT.EDU, sipb-afsreq@MIT.EDU,
charon-maintainers@MIT.EDU, rtfm-maintainers@MIT.EDU,
webmaster@MIT.EDU, usenet@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: mhpower@MIT.EDU's message of Sun, 17 Apr 94 00:58:17 EDT <199404170458.AAA09988@bloom-picayune.MIT.EDU>
From: mhpower@MIT.EDU
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 94 00:58:17 EDT
>Currently, I favor using the SS20 for beacon.
Another reason is that it seems entirely possible that a lot of the
problems with stuck nntp connections are due to Ultrix kernel bugs.
I think so as well. Also, beacon is getting real near the falling down
point now. I think we may want to move the extra memory from yaz to
beacon asap.
> ... The Web server should
>do significantly better on a Maxine with 40MB of memory than it does
>now on charon, ...
Right, but the growth of www is much faster than any other sipb
service. I don't think putting one Maxine there works either. One
possibility is to run the www server on the same machine as the rtfm
services. This assumes that an ss20 is more than "twice as good" as a
Maxine (in terms of whatever resources the services need). I'm not
sure whether that's really true. I think a better solution that's
still feasible is to assign two Maxines to the www server, and letting
the webmasters decide whether they want to have some files/URLs on one
machine and some on the other, or whether they want duplication for
load balancing (possibly something like is done on www.ncsa.uiuc.edu).
This could involve either the Maxine tagged for afs, or else yaz.
Well, judging from the performance of noc.near.net (which, despite my
previous statement to the contrary, is an SS10), I'd say they aren't
twice as good as a Maxine. And an SS20 is not a large improvement over
an '10, it mainly only adds some more caching.
>Several other services such as bitnet and gopher will probably run on
>the same machine as discuss or WWW.
I think it doesn't particularly matter which machines these run on, so
we might as well put them wherever it'll be simplest in terms of
software changes and cname assignments (i.e., it will save a lot of
work/trouble if discuss is on a machine with the names charon and
bloom-picayune, bitnet is also there, the names sipb and rtfm are both
on the same other machine, etc.) Also, we need some place to put irc.
We also need to figure out what is needed where in terms of disk space.
Martha
