[sf-lug] SF-LUG.COM replacement box (& BALUG)

jim stockford jim at well.com
Thu Aug 30 06:55:32 PDT 2007

very helpful, thanks!

On Aug 30, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Michael Paoli wrote:

> Well, treat replacing the sf-lug.com box as an "upgrade".
> ... basically all the data stays the same - or as same as feasible,
> or at *least* fully back up all the data and metadata, so all the
> applicable desired functionality and data can be restored and
> put back in place as soon as feasible.
> May also be quite desirable to tweak the filesystem configuration and
> mirroring a bit when doing the "upgrade" ... most notably, I know 
> there's
> been desire to set up the disk mirroring to be quite symetrical - at
> present I don't think it's quite as symetrical as desired.  Some of
> the filesystem heirarchy should also be split a bit more into separate
> filesystems, ... most notably I'd strongly recommend /usr and /var
> be separate filesystems.  I'd also recommend /tmp be tmpfs.
> Among the metadata, also gather size and sizing information (e.g.
> du -sx /var; du -sx /usr; sfdisk -uS -l; sfdisk -uS -d).
> references/excerpts:
> $ hostname; df -k /var /usr; mount | awk '{if($3=="/tmp")print;}'
> sf-lug
> Filesystem           1K-blocks      Used Available Use% Mounted on
> /dev/md0               9612516   3323336   5800888  37% /
> /dev/md0               9612516   3323336   5800888  37% /
> /dev/hda9 on /tmp type ext3 (rw)
> $
> Quoting jim stockford <jim at well.com>:
>>     it looks like we're getting a replacement box,
>> which means revisiting box issues, notably
>> hostname and the install-configs of the various
>> apps on the box (notably postfix and apache).
>>     comments and opinions are welcome.

More information about the sf-lug mailing list