[sf-lug] SF-LUG 2007-09-17 meeting & SF-LUG.COM replacement box (& BALUG)

[Michael Paoli]

So, new box(es) ..

For the SF-LUG 2007-09-17 meeting, can we round up myself, Jim Stockford,
and Nathan?  If we can round up the "core" systems administrators of
the sf-lug.com. box, we could include doing a "planning meeting" for
the new box(es) at the SF-LUG 2007-09-17 meeting.

Also, do we have more details on the new/replacement hardware?  E.g.
make, model, configuration/specifications, etc.?  (Do we even have those
details on the existing sf-lug.com. hardware?).  Do we know if both
boxen have an additional Ethernet interface available (e.g. to set up
private direct connection between the boxes, to be able to transfer lots
of data relatively quickly - and also quite securely)?  Can we get remote
KVM (not just serial console) access to these systems?  Also having remote
power control would be good too (but in a pinch, colo can generally handle
powering devices off and on ... some even have facilities to allow that
without  physically touching the hardware ... and some may even allow that
to be controlled by the clients via software).

CDs/DVDs ... should we have/leave some suitably appropriate "recovery"
CD/DVD in the boxen, so that with remote KVM access, if/when recovery,
troubleshooting, etc., may be needed, we'd have a most appropriate
media already in the box and ready to boot from (with possible change
first to the boot configuration).

Quoting jim stockford <jim at well.com>:

> 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.