Difference between revisions of "Talk:Vote to Refresh PS:One Server Hardware"

From Pumping Station: One Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 20: Line 20:
  
 
: We're concerned about power consumption at the rack, for the sake of our power conditioning equipment. There are a number of more fruitful avenues for reducing overall energy requirements of the space (like our uninsulated entryway, or how people leave the back door open even when we're heating the shop). A more thoroughly-planned distribution of switches throughout the space could make our network infrastructure much more useful and robust. --[[User:Dbever|Dbever]] ([[User talk:Dbever|talk]]) 19:11, 18 March 2015 (CDT)
 
: We're concerned about power consumption at the rack, for the sake of our power conditioning equipment. There are a number of more fruitful avenues for reducing overall energy requirements of the space (like our uninsulated entryway, or how people leave the back door open even when we're heating the shop). A more thoroughly-planned distribution of switches throughout the space could make our network infrastructure much more useful and robust. --[[User:Dbever|Dbever]] ([[User talk:Dbever|talk]]) 19:11, 18 March 2015 (CDT)
 +
 +
I support this, but want to point out the obvious: if we get only one server, we won't have any fail over capability. Do we need fail over? Probably not, but it's a good architecture. --[[User:Glenn|Glenn]] ([[User talk:Glenn|talk]]) 10:30, 19 Mar 19 2015 (CDT)
 +
 +
We should consider a PAIR of backup drives. BackBlaze has [https://www.backblaze.com/blog/best-hard-drive/ hard drive failure stats]. I use [http://www.amazon.com/HGST-Touro-Desktop-External-0S03396/dp/B007K4HA0W HGST Turo 4 TB] drives. --[[User:Glenn|Glenn]] ([[User talk:Glenn|talk]]) 10:30, 19 Mar 19 2015 (CDT)
  
 
== What is needed to get this moving? ==
 
== What is needed to get this moving? ==

Revision as of 10:32, 19 March 2015

Switches

Replacing our existing switch is a good idea, but a single 16 port switch is insufficient. We currently have more than 32 cables connected to the existing switch - some of them may be orphans, but I think planning on expansions is a good idea.

Their is it's big brother http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833704024
I could not find any power consumption stats to add to the information on these. I'm sure the 24 will use more power so if we can live with the 16 thats not too bad.
Also if we are in the power saving mode couldn't we get rid of the switches spread around (Electronics, above hot metals)? Wouldn't just running the extra lines do it? If so I would be willing to head up a line running party when this needs to be done. Maybe I am missing something and those switches are needed. --Lucas (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2015 (CST)

I would recommend taking a look at what's currently in the rack to get an idea of what we would need as far as number of ports - it's kind of a shitload. Power saving is a concern in the rack specifically because our current UPS situation is dire - the less capacity we need to buy down the road, the better.

RE cabling infrastructure improvements - so long as such projects are tackled with some planning and forethought, I would encourage them to happen as folks see fit. --Dbever (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2015 (CST)

WOW, I had a look, how was a 16 port even supposed to make a dent! --Lucas (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2015 (CST)

Regarding switch ports, I updated the prices to reflect a 24port model of the same switch. We have lots of other 24 port switches around the space which can be better utilized with some planning. We don't really need to be terminating connections for the whole space at the rack, just the rack infrastructure. The idea is to lower the power consumption in the rack itself, we can run other switches around the space. Kuroishi (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2015 (CDT)

Well, if we are trying to save electricity a switch powered on 24/7 for 3 connections seems like a waste.--Lucas (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2015 (CDT)
We're concerned about power consumption at the rack, for the sake of our power conditioning equipment. There are a number of more fruitful avenues for reducing overall energy requirements of the space (like our uninsulated entryway, or how people leave the back door open even when we're heating the shop). A more thoroughly-planned distribution of switches throughout the space could make our network infrastructure much more useful and robust. --Dbever (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2015 (CDT)

I support this, but want to point out the obvious: if we get only one server, we won't have any fail over capability. Do we need fail over? Probably not, but it's a good architecture. --Glenn (talk) 10:30, 19 Mar 19 2015 (CDT)

We should consider a PAIR of backup drives. BackBlaze has hard drive failure stats. I use HGST Turo 4 TB drives. --Glenn (talk) 10:30, 19 Mar 19 2015 (CDT)

What is needed to get this moving?

?

Find suitable hardware currently available on eBay, plan for what would still be available a few weeks from now, determine our need for new switches (lower power, unmanaged switches may be a better goal than the existing hardware). Talk to people like Hef, Ian, Dave to see if they've got any new input since it was touched. Then a full member could propose it more or less whenever they liked. --Dbever (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2015 (CST)

Well the current links are still good. --Lucas (talk) 10:05, 17 February 2015 (CST)