[cfarm-users] Future of cfarm186/cfarm187/cfarm188 at OSUOSL

[Baptiste Jonglez]

Hi,

OSUOSL will shut down the current x86 machines (cfarm186, 187, 188) on
March 30th at the latest.  I would like to have a replacement before that.

Thinking about the options below, and given the result of the discussion,
I think we should still keep one large machine for parallel tests and
builds.  It can be a physical or virtual machine, it doesn't really matter
for x86.  I've asked for at least 32 cores / 64 GB / 2-3 TB storage.
I propose we go with Debian forky (current testing) to setup something
that would stay relevant for the next 6 years or so.

The second use-case is to have several different OS, but the machines can
have smaller hardware specs.  I've asked OSUOSL if Openstack is relevant
here, anticipating up to 8 VMs with each 8-12 cores, 16-32 GB RAM,
500 GB - 1 TB storage.

Assuming a positive response from OSUOSL, does anybody want to help setup
VMs on the Openstack cluster?

Baptiste

On 21-01-26, Baptiste Jonglez via cfarm-users wrote:
> On 15-11-25, Baptiste Jonglez via cfarm-users wrote:
> > As some of you may know, OSUOSL is moving to a new datacenter.
> > (...)
> > 
> > However, the three x86 machines (cfarm186, 187, 188) are getting quite
> > old, so OSUOSL is looking at replacing them with newer hardware.  We
> > probably won't be able to keep as many machines.
> > 
> > Here are two possible options to start the discussion:
> > 
> > - option 1: one much bigger machine, bare metal.  Which (single) OS makes the most sense?
> > 
> > - option 2: several virtual machines.  Which (multiple) OS would be useful?
> > 
> > Here, "big" means dual-socket Intel Xeon Platinum 8280, so 56 cores / 112
> > threads, with 768 GB RAM.
> 
> So, it seems we should rather go with option 2: have many small virtual
> machines instead of one big physical x86 server.
> 
> I see three ways to run that:
> 
> (a) ask OSUOSL to use their OpenStack cluster: it delegates physical
>     maintenance to competent people.  Also, each VM can have its own public
>     IP address, which simplifies things a lot.  However, it would only work
>     with "common" operating systems.  I will ask OSUOSL what OS they can support.
> 
> (b) run virtualization ourselves on one of the big OSUOSL physical servers.
>     However, it requires more maintenance on our end (e.g. maintaining a
>     Proxmox setup), and we probably won't be able to have a separate IP per
>     VM.  Also, it would waste hardware resources: even 10 VMs would be far
>     from filling up one server.
> 
> (c) find somebody that already has the expertise and infrastructure to run
>     VMs with unusual OS, and ask if they could provide some for cfarm.
>     Ideally, each VM would need its own public IP address.
> 
> I would rather go with (a) for common OS and (c) for uncommon ones, and
> avoid (b).
> 
> 
> Here is the OS wishlist collected from the thread:
> 
> - Haiku, Minix, Hurd and Sortix (especially Hurd)
> - Trisquel
> - Illumos distributions (OpenIndiana, OmniOS, Tribblix)
> - Fedora or Gentoo
> 
> Baptiste
> _______________________________________________
> cfarm-users mailing list
> cfarm-users at lists.tetaneutral.net
> https://lists.tetaneutral.net/listinfo/cfarm-users