On Wed, 13 Feb 2013 01:52:15 -0500 (EST) Seth Vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Today Patrick got the trac plugin for openid working pretty well with > the new openid service. This effectively breaks our tight bind to the > fas db (and mod_auth_pgsql) from the hosted boxes. Hurray! Three cheers. > A while back we discussed the possibility of scaling the hosted > service out horizontally somewhat by being able to break the projects > up into chunks of data. Yep. I think it's still a good idea. > We said we'd need folks to refer to their sites with something like: > > projectname.fedorahosted.org > > so we could direct them to the right machine via dns on the backend. > And we could then more easily add capacity as needed. > > One thing we've been doing is running fedorahosted behind https. Part > of that is b/c we were doing a basic-auth to pgsql to auth against > fas. With openid that won't be an issue anymore. > > The second reason is for personal/private/confidential items in > tickets or what-not - for example the board trac instance. To that I > suggest we bottle up the board trac instance, stuff it somewhere we > can put an ssl cert in front of it and move along. > > For the rest we make them non-ssl'd. The openid login, of course > would be ssl'd, but the rest of the site doesn't really need to be, > does it? I think we could also look at getting a wildcard cert and just stay with https. But I agree thats a detail... either way is probibly fine. > So we'd still need to get people to refer to the right urls. I don't > think that would be likely to happen over night but we can at least > start doing so, right? Yep. > What we get: > 1. we get the possibility of not having all of our eggs in the one > basket of serverbeach and the two hosted instances running now > 2. we can possibly gain performance by getting some of the data off > of the one big gluster dastastore. > 3. we gain the ability to setup a 'newhosted' server, put a few > trac/git/etc instances over there and try things out w/o breaking all > the rest of them. I think we might want to setup a hosted01.stg at some point for testing things out. It would be good to be able to do that without bothering production. If we split projects out we could also have some direct to the staging instance too. > 4. If we suddenly find we have a single, extremely popular project > (good problem to have imo) then we can give it a dedicate instance > and maintain performance. Yep. > Does anyone like this idea? Is anyone opposed to it? Got criticisms > that sould be addressed? Things I'm completely blanking about? So, would these hosted instances be something good for persistent cloud? Or do you think they would be better as regular vhosts? I think it might be nifty to at least have the ability to spin them in cloud instances so we could rapidly move/add things to that (think of a slashdot day for a project, we could move them to a big cloud instance and then move them back to the regular vhost after it was calmed down). kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
