Open Stack

Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-06-21 17:34:07 +0000 (+0000), Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>> On 2016-06-21 18:16:49 +0200 (+0200), Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>> It hurts a lot when it's down because of so many services being served from
>>> it. We could also separate the published websites (status.o.o,
>>> governance.o.o, security.o.o, releases.o.o...) which require limited
>>> resources and grow slowly, from the more resource-hungry storage sites
>>> (logs.o.o, tarballs.o.o...).
>>
>> Agreed, that's actually a pretty trivial change, comparatively
>> speaking.
>
> Oh, though it bears mention that the most recent extended outage
> (and by far longest we've experienced in a while) would have been
> just as bad either way. It had nothing to do with recovering
> attached volumes/filesystems, but rather was a host outage at the
> provider entirely outside our sphere of control. That sort of issue
> can potentially happen with any of our servers/services no matter
> how much we split them up.

I don't think it would have been just as bad... Even in the unlucky case 
where the VMs end up on the same machine and are all affected, IIUC 
rebuilding some of them would have been much faster if they were split 
up (less data to rsync) ?

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)