From FedoraProject

< Infrastructure | Meetings
Revision as of 14:13, 24 May 2008 by ImportUser (Talk)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Infrastructure > Meetings -> 2006-12-07

Meeting of 2006-12-07

*** Time shown in EST

15:01 < mmcgrath> We ready?
15:01 < mmcgrath> Who all is here?
15:03  * teknofile is sorta here
15:03 -!- kschreyack [n=kschreya@]  has joined #fedora-admin
15:03 < iWolf> here
15:03 < mmcgrath> For the new guys we follow the Schedule on
15:03 < mmcgrath> I'll just get started, this may be short.
15:04 < iWolf> :)
15:04 < mmcgrath> There's been plenty of discussion on the packaging database on the list this week.
15:04 < mmcgrath> abadger1999: anything to add right now?
15:04 < abadger1999> Nope.  It's all on the list :-)
15:05 < mmcgrath> How about with mercurial or any of the vcs stuff?
15:05 < mmcgrath> f13: anything?
15:06 < mmcgrath> pass :-D
15:06 < teknofile> guess not
15:06 < mmcgrath> iWolf: are you still waiting on me for the new db box?
15:06 < mmcgrath> What all do we want to do with it?
15:06 < mmcgrath> in general I still don't trust it until its proven itself again.
15:07 < iWolf> mmcgrath: oh yeah, we're using the old cvs for it now?
15:07 < mmcgrath> Yeah, its just sitting there.
15:07 < mmcgrath> I figure if nothing else it'd make a good backup db server.  Either way are we going the xen route with db as well?
15:07  * mmcgrath votes +1
15:07 < iWolf> mmcgrath: I am fine with Xen for it.
15:08 < mmcgrath> cool.  Live migration would be very nice for the db server if we get to that point.
15:08 < iWolf> so should I put the Xen guest on the old cvs hardware or on one of the xen servers?
15:08 < mmcgrath> I'd say turn the old cvs hardware into a xen box and use it.
15:08  * dgilmore is here
15:08 < mmcgrath> dgilmore: yo
15:08 < iWolf> mmcgrath: okay.
15:09 < mmcgrath> I'm not even sure if it got hooked back up and is live or not.
15:09 < iWolf> mmcgrath: I just wrapped up a big project at work last weekend, so I hope to have some more time to dig into it again.
15:09 < iWolf> mmcgrath: did Dell come back out and look at it?
15:09 < mmcgrath> Either way what ever is left on it can be blown away.  IIRC it was a total loss.
15:09 < mmcgrath> yeah, they replaced the backplane.
15:09 < mmcgrath> and the bad drives.
15:10 < iWolf> mmcgrath: should I check with Stacy to see if it was hooked back up?
15:10 < mmcgrath> Check with Stacy or mgalgoci to see if it got hooked back up.
15:10 < iWolf> mmcgrath: will do.
15:10 -!- [japj]  []  has joined #fedora-admin
15:10 < mmcgrath> lmacken: any firewall stuff to report?
15:11  * mmcgrath is not sure if lmacken is here.
15:11 < teknofile> mmcgrath: his e-mail to the list said he wouldn't be able to make any infra mtgs for 10 weeks
15:11 < mmcgrath> thats right, well either way he's close to done with most of that.
15:12 < mmcgrath> warren's on the xen list right now but one thing we're waiting on is the smtp server, dgilmore where's that sit?
15:13 < warren> does anyone understand how to configure the sendmail on the other boxes?
15:13 < warren> we could start by using it as outgoing SMTP on one box, make sure that works, then expand from there.
15:13 < mmcgrath> Yeah, we just need to point them to it instead of bastion.
15:13 < teknofile> sendmail or postfix? the Schedule talked about using postfix
15:13 < warren> smtp.fedora is postfix
15:13 < iWolf> warren: probably a good early test.
15:13 < mmcgrath> the other boxes are running sendmail, our primary smtp server is running postfix
15:14 < warren> Does anyone understand everything the sendmail on the other boxes is doing?
15:14 < warren> If so, we could convert those too
15:14 < warren> but let's convert them after smtp goes live and is confirmed working
15:14 < mmcgrath> They're just using bastion as the smart host for relay I think.
15:14 < warren> that's it?
15:14 < iWolf> mmcgrath: I believe that is all they do.
15:14 < teknofile> that's pretty easy to convert to postfix then
15:14 < mmcgrath> worksforme.  Any volunteers alter the current configs to point to smtp instead of bastion?
15:15 < warren> which is the lowest risk host(s) to test first?
15:15 < mmcgrath> the proxy servers or the hammer servers.
15:15 < iWolf> probably something we have more than one of.
15:15 < iWolf> one of the proxies would be a good choice I think.
15:16 < warren> we also need to edit the scripts to generate postfix-suitable mail aliases
15:16 < warren> Hmm... I'll try to do this before next Thursday.
15:17 < mmcgrath> awesome, thanks warren.
15:17 < warren> I might reinstall smpt.fedora for good measure
15:17 < mmcgrath> You can do that if you want.  I'm not even sure we ever got it totally working to begin with.
15:17 < iWolf> it was sending mail last week.
15:17 < mmcgrath> dgilmore: so the legacy builders, do we still need them or is legacy going away.
15:17 < iWolf> I sent a few test message through it.
15:18 < iWolf> the greylisting was not on there, but it looked like amavis and clam were.
15:18 < mmcgrath> I don't think it was recieving mail correctly (at least as far as otrs goes)
15:18 < mmcgrath> does anyone know what the news with legacy is?
15:18 < mmcgrath> f13: ping?
15:18 < iWolf> mmcgrath: there was a firewall rule that was stopping some of it.
15:18 < dgilmore> mmcgrath: no idea
15:18 < iWolf> I added the amavis port and the second postfix instance and it started sending.
15:18 < mmcgrath> ah
15:19 < mmcgrath> We'll skip legacy for now
15:19 < mmcgrath> Config Management: I see someone has packaged glump, it needs review.
15:20 < mmcgrath> Has anyone else had a chance to look at it?  For or against?
15:20 < iWolf> I have looked at it briefly.
15:20 < warren> iWolf, ah ok
15:20 < warren> iWolf, I'll try to add greylisting then.
15:21 < mmcgrath> warren: cool
15:21 < dgilmore> mmcgrath: i havent looked at glump  yet
15:21 < mmcgrath> iWolf: what do you think?
15:21 < dgilmore> but i want to look at it and compare it to cfengine
15:21 < abadger1999> mmcgrath: What do you think about adding something to glump to get configs from the client back to the server?
15:21 < iWolf> I think it could work well for us.  The "enforcement" nature is probably something we need.
15:21 < warren> perhaps implement glump to manage one host, and see how people like it?
15:21 < warren> hands on is a great way
15:22 < mmcgrath> dgilmore: <nod>
15:23 < abadger1999> mmcgrath: Would it be easy or pretty orthogonal to what it does already?
15:23 < mmcgrath> warren: agreed
15:23 < mmcgrath> abadger1999: to implement it on one host you mean?
15:23 < warren> glump for smtp maybe?
15:23 < abadger1999> No, passing configs back
15:24 < warren> hmm... no better to use glump on something that we *know* works first =)
15:24 < mmcgrath> warren: heh
15:24 < abadger1999> warren: *grin*
15:24 -!- GeroldKa [n=Gerold@fedora/geroldka]  has joined #fedora-admin
15:24 < warren> just pick a host and implement glump on it?
15:25 < mmcgrath> Yeah, we could look close at cfengine too.  Who here has experience with it?
15:25 < mmcgrath> dgilmore?
15:25 < GeroldKa> hi all
15:25 < dgilmore> mmcgrath: i have not used it.
15:25 < mmcgrath> hello
15:25 < [japj] > hi
15:25 < dgilmore> but i figure nows a good time to learn
15:25 < abadger1999> mmcgrath: I ask because glump's enforcement is a stick to make people do the right thing.  Would be good to think about a carrot as well (making it easy to test a config and then send it back to the server.)
15:25 < mmcgrath> Yeah, we should take a look.
15:26 < iWolf> abadger1999: that would be a nice feature as well...
15:26 < dgilmore> abadger1999: make your change  test it and scp it accross
15:26 < mmcgrath> When you say send it back you mean pulling the client config from the servers?
15:27 < abadger1999> dgilmore: True.  But then you have to remember paths, and etc.  And what if we ant to do version control on theserver side?
15:27 < dgilmore> abadger1999: sure
15:27 < mmcgrath> Should we continue this on the list?
15:27 < abadger1999> Maybe to write that I should come up with a list of nice things and then we can write a script to handle it.
15:27 < warren> mgalgoci tells me that they're pretty happy with cfengine
15:27 < iWolf> mmcgrath: +1
15:27 -!- japj []  has quit [Connection timed out] 
15:27 < abadger1999> mmcgrath: +1
15:27 -!- [japj]  is now known as japj
15:28 < mmcgrath> abadger1999: want to start a 'requirements' type email with all of the 'nice things' you come up with ;-) ?
15:29 < abadger1999> mmcgrath: I'll do that and stick it on the wiki too.
15:29 < mmcgrath> Awesome.
15:29 < mmcgrath> Ok, next item is metrics.
15:29 < mmcgrath> This round of metrics went fairly well.  We're bout to hit 600,000 users
15:30 < iWolf> nice!
15:30 < dgilmore> :D
15:30 < mmcgrath> We need to figure out what we're going to do for FC7.  I'll re-start that conversation on the FAB
15:30 < mmcgrath> <- Graph
15:30 < mmcgrath> for those that don't know
15:30 < mmcgrath> <- rawhide
15:30 -!- jcollie []  has joined #fedora-admin
15:30 < mmcgrath> Anywho, more on that later.
15:31 < mmcgrath> postfix we talked about
15:31 < mmcgrath> hardware reporting tool is kind of in limbo at the moment.
15:31 < mmcgrath> lmacken's not here to discuss the updates system
15:31 < mmcgrath> The caching proxies have come a long way but paulo and kim0 aren't here.
15:31 < mmcgrath> Basically we've updated Moin to the newest version, its about ready for testing.
15:32 < mmcgrath> and f13's still working on "Project Hosting" which could turn into a huge thing if its popular.
15:32 < mmcgrath> So thats all We've got for the priority 1 and 2 stuff.
15:32 < mmcgrath> Anyone have anything they'd like to add?
15:32 < japj> any word on brew?
15:33 < warren> japj, progress on convincing people, we're still waiting
15:34 < mmcgrath> Anyone have anything else?  I'll end the meeting in 20
15:35 < mmcgrath> On a side note there is an Infrastructure position available as was announced on the Fedora Announce list!  Anyoneinterested is welcome to apply!
15:35 < mmcgrath> Ok, MEETING END ---------------