71–80 of 125 posts
Oregon State University's Open Source Lab ( https://osuosl.org/ ) offers managed and unmanaged hosting to open source projects. They even have IBM Z and POWER10 hosting if you're into that sort of thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I did, of course. Storage is MUCH cheaper when you colo, and bandwidth requirements are a large part of why you colocate instead of just running servers out of an office building that has at least two upstream connections. I'm really curious what you think they're using now. Certainly you read the article... It says they're using bare metal servers. That's basically colo where the provider owns, but doesn't cont…
> Storage is MUCH cheaper Probably because it's not redundant or automatically backed up at any interval. The worst days of my life have been during hardware failures at colos.
Running on 'large donations' is not a viable strategy for any long-term goal. Perhaps its time for Linux to consider running a tiny datacenter of its very own to both dog-feed itself and give itself extra momentum or inertia from donation stall-out?
Broader question, but whatever happened to every university with a CS department hosting mirrors of popular distros? I always assumed CDNs replaced them, but seeing this, maybe they didn't.
Oh man that sucks! I wonder if we could pull Alpine into our colo, we recently upgraded to a full rack from 2U (it was cheaper than a quarter rack!) and have a ton of space. Plus all of our libvirt/KVM HVMs run Alpine.
It's surprising to me that Alpine isn't set for life from corporate donations. They're my first choice for laying down the foundation in a container.
I can think of maybe three exceptions my entire career, and none of them were especially huge contributions.
Oregon State University's Open Source Lab ( https://osuosl.org/ ) offers managed and unmanaged hosting to open source projects. They even have IBM Z and POWER10 hosting if you're into that sort of thing.
This has been brought up with freedesktop and they handwaved it away. They claim they want to DIY with donation money but they don't have a donation mechanism and I suspect they don't know how much work just handling money is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I did, of course. Storage is MUCH cheaper when you colo, and bandwidth requirements are a large part of why you colocate instead of just running servers out of an office building that has at least two upstream connections. I'm really curious what you think they're using now. Certainly you read the article... It says they're using bare metal servers. That's basically colo where the provider owns, but doesn't cont…
> Storage is MUCH cheaper Probably because it's not redundant or automatically backed up at any interval. The worst days of my life have been during hardware failures at colos.
What I don't know is how to make your web servers failover graceful if one goes down (the really hard problem is if the internet splits so both servers are active and making changes). I assume other people still know how to do this.
With the likes of AWS they tell you the above comes free with just a monthly charge. Generally open source projects like having more control over the hardware (which has advantages and disadvantages) and so want to colo. They would probably be happy running in my basement (other than they don't trust me with admin access and I don't want to be admin - but perhaps a couple admins have the ability to do this).
Why is this stuff not primarily hosted via bittorrent, now? Even Microsoft updates can use end user device distributed hosting.
Admittedly I am rather surprised by the storage requirements from Freedesktop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I did, of course. Storage is MUCH cheaper when you colo, and bandwidth requirements are a large part of why you colocate instead of just running servers out of an office building that has at least two upstream connections. I'm really curious what you think they're using now. Certainly you read the article... It says they're using bare metal servers. That's basically colo where the provider owns, but doesn't cont…
> Storage is MUCH cheaper Probably because it's not redundant or automatically backed up at any interval. The worst days of my life have been during hardware failures at colos.
Purchased, fully redundant storage is MUCH cheaper than anything in the cloud when talking about any time frame of a year or more.
Obviously you can "rent" storage for a month for less than the cost of purchasing it, but only idiot startup CTOs try to argue a comparison like that.
Two sets of storage are still cheaper, and we all have rsync.