Feature #14797: Decide what LVs to host on lizard rotating drives

Feature #14797

Decide what LVs to host on lizard rotating drives

Added by bertagaz 2017-10-07 09:52:43 . Updated 2019-05-06 18:15:39 .

Status:

Rejected

Priority:

Normal

Assignee:

Category:

Infrastructure

Target version:

Tails_3.13.2

Start date:

2017-10-07

Due date:

% Done:

20%

Feature Branch:

Type of work:

Sysadmin

Blueprint:

Starter:

Affected tool:

Deliverable for:

Description

We have created a dedicated spinninglizard VG on lizard’s rotating drives when we installed new SSDs. It’s empty at the moment, so we have to decide which LVs are going to be on this VG and then move them.

Subtasks

Related issues

Related to Tails - ~~Bug #13425~~: Upgrade lizard's storage (2017 edition)	Resolved	2017-07-05
Blocks Tails - Feature #13242: Core work: Sysadmin (Maintain our already existing services)	Confirmed	2017-06-29

History

#1 Updated by bertagaz 2017-10-07 09:53:10

related to ~~Bug #13425~~: Upgrade lizard's storage (2017 edition) added

#2 Updated by bertagaz 2017-10-07 09:54:06

blocks Feature #13242: Core work: Sysadmin (Maintain our already existing services) added

#3 Updated by intrigeri 2017-10-07 10:35:04

I guess it’ll be a subset of what we had there previously (IIRC I had put quite some thought into it).

#4 Updated by bertagaz 2017-10-13 12:59:44

Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
Assignee changed from bertagaz to intrigeri
% Done changed from 0 to 20
QA Check set to Info Needed

intrigeri wrote:
> I guess it’ll be a subset of what we had there previously (IIRC I had put quite some thought into it).

That was:

/dev/lizard/jenkins-data
/dev/lizard/torbrowser-archive
/dev/lizard/isos
/dev/lizard/rsync-data

The jenkins-data LV is 300G big. We have planned to grow the torbrowser-archive and isos LVs to 200G and 240G respectively (which include both occurences of each, the gitolite and git-annex clone). So my proposal is to move out the jenkins-data one, and put all isos and torbrowser-archive LVs on this rotating drive, as well as the rsync-data one. This way we should be close to the disk space limit (which is 558g) and still have a bit of free space just in case. What’s your opinion?

#5 Updated by intrigeri 2017-10-14 07:14:24

Assignee changed from intrigeri to bertagaz
QA Check changed from Info Needed to Dev Needed

> The jenkins-data LV is 300G big. We have planned to grow the torbrowser-archive and isos LVs to 200G and 240G respectively (which include both occurences of each, the gitolite and git-annex clone). So my proposal is to move out the jenkins-data one, and put all isos and torbrowser-archive LVs on this rotating drive, as well as the rsync-data one.

ACK wrt. moving back the jenkins-data one and rsync-data to rotating drives.

Wrt. the isos and torbrowser-archive ones, I would move only those that are rarely used i.e. the ones that are assigned to puppet-git. And the ones that are used during each ISO build (assigned to www) could remain on faster SSDs.

So essentially we would get back to exactly what we had previously.

> This way we should be close to the disk space limit (which is 558g) and still have a bit of free space just in case. What’s your opinion?

It sounds like you’re trying to move as much stuff as possible to slower, rotating drives. I don’t understand why we would want to do that: it feels wrong that adding SSDs results in degraded I/O performance, no? If you have arguments in favour of this change, please state them before asking me for my opinion (i.e. implicitly asking me to do the reasoning myself, as I’ve already mentioned in a meta comment a couple months ago). Thanks in advance!