Feature #10764

Check if we can host another machine at SeaCCP

Added by intrigeri 2015-12-15 15:43:26 . Updated 2016-01-21 16:49:50 .

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
High
Assignee:
Category:
Infrastructure
Target version:
Start date:
2015-12-15
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Feature Branch:
Type of work:
Communicate
Blueprint:

Starter:
Affected tool:
Deliverable for:

Description

(An initial request was sent on 18 Nov 2015, but I see no ping nor follow-up to it so let’s hope a ticket will help us track it.)


Subtasks


History

#1 Updated by intrigeri 2015-12-15 15:43:38

  • blocks #8538 added

#2 Updated by intrigeri 2016-01-05 20:29:07

  • % Done changed from 10 to 50
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA

I finally took a few minutes to make progress on this one:

  • there are something like 5U free right now, so hosting 1 more U for us should be fine
  • there’s enough power for a high-power box (there’s 12/16A on each circuit now)

Is there anything else we need to know before we tell them we need that space + power “soon”, and close this ticket?

#3 Updated by bertagaz 2016-01-20 09:21:28

  • Assignee changed from bertagaz to intrigeri

intrigeri wrote:
> Is there anything else we need to know before we tell them we need that space + power “soon”, and close this ticket?

There’s one thing I can think about: check if it’s possible to connect this new box directly into Lizard’s second network interface, so that we don’t use all the bandwidth in the colo. But reading the answer from our contact there, the question was already asked and he didn’t say it wasn’t. So I think we’re fine here.

#4 Updated by intrigeri 2016-01-21 16:42:34

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved

> There’s one thing I can think about: check if it’s possible to connect this new box directly into Lizard’s second network interface, so that we don’t use all the bandwidth in the colo. But reading the answer from our contact there, the question was already asked and he didn’t say it wasn’t. So I think we’re fine here.

He explicitly said it was a good idea. I don’t think he would have written that if this wasn’t possible, so yeah, I think we’re good :)

#5 Updated by intrigeri 2016-01-21 16:49:50

  • Assignee deleted (intrigeri)
  • % Done changed from 50 to 100
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass