it was also felt more sociable to not use the quiet room for noisy servers.
FWIW - the box I was working on was for a storage solution to use with the VM hosting. Now that that has been scrapped :-( I will dismantle the storage solution when I am next in I think I will take it home and work on it on my power bill
On Wednesday, 3 October 2012 15:23:47 UTC+1, Jon Fautley wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:42:04AM -0700, tgreer wrote: > > The VM one isn't a personal project it's for the space. If it's an issue > > let it be known and the idea will be scrapped. I can't talk for Simon's > > machine however.
> Also please note that while "my" machine and Simon's system/disk shelves > are in the main room, they're there because it has freed up space in the > quiet room, and I decided it was pointless moving them back into the > quiet room where (IMO) they cause more of an inconvenience than they do > in the main room (in so far as the desks are still usable).
> As far as I am aware, all these systems should be powered off. If they > are not then let me know which one(s) are still powered on and I'll sort > it out.
On Wednesday, 3 October 2012 16:49:43 UTC+1, Simon wrote:
> it was also felt more sociable to not use the quiet room for noisy servers.
> FWIW - the box I was working on was for a storage solution to use with the > VM hosting. Now that that has been scrapped :-( I will dismantle the > storage solution when I am next in > I think I will take it home and work on it on my power bill
> On Wednesday, 3 October 2012 15:23:47 UTC+1, Jon Fautley wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:42:04AM -0700, tgreer wrote: >> > The VM one isn't a personal project it's for the space. If it's an >> issue >> > let it be known and the idea will be scrapped. I can't talk for Simon's >> > machine however.
>> Also please note that while "my" machine and Simon's system/disk shelves >> are in the main room, they're there because it has freed up space in the >> quiet room, and I decided it was pointless moving them back into the >> quiet room where (IMO) they cause more of an inconvenience than they do >> in the main room (in so far as the desks are still usable).
>> As far as I am aware, all these systems should be powered off. If they >> are not then let me know which one(s) are still powered on and I'll sort >> it out.
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012, Jon Fautley wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:42:04AM -0700, tgreer wrote:
> > The VM one isn't a personal project it's for the space. If it's an issue > > let it be known and the idea will be scrapped. I can't talk for Simon's > > machine however.
> Also please note that while "my" machine and Simon's system/disk shelves
> are in the main room, they're there because it has freed up space in the
> quiet room, and I decided it was pointless moving them back into the
> quiet room where (IMO) they cause more of an inconvenience than they do
> in the main room (in so far as the desks are still usable).
> As far as I am aware, all these systems should be powered off. If they
> are not then let me know which one(s) are still powered on and I'll sort
> it out.
One was in standby mode and the flashing lights from the ilom thing made it look like it was on. the switch on top of it was on too.
I pulled the power cables on all of it.
I'm using the switch and the desk now to do some disk wipeing, but am running into some epic yak shaving :(
> FWIW - the box I was working on was for a storage solution to use with the VM hosting. Now that that has been scrapped :-( I will dismantle the storage solution when I am next in
> I think I will take it home and work on it on my power bill
For the opportunities this amazing haul offers us it seems silly, to me, to just go for the cash - why don't we make the most of at least a couple of the machines in the space?
I imagine that the profit from ebaying one or two servers will easily pay the leccy for a year of vm's+storage. VM's for everyone!
On 3 October 2012 21:09, Martin Klang <m...@pingdynasty.com> wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2012, at 16:49, Simon wrote:
>> FWIW - the box I was working on was for a storage solution to use with the VM hosting. Now that that has been scrapped :-( I will dismantle the storage solution when I am next in
>> I think I will take it home and work on it on my power bill
> For the opportunities this amazing haul offers us it seems silly, to me, to just go for the cash - why don't we make the most of at least a couple of the machines in the space?
> I imagine that the profit from ebaying one or two servers will easily pay the leccy for a year of vm's+storage. VM's for everyone!
I personally am all for some big iron in the space, but ultimately
it's not up to me. We have problems with space and power, and I'm
frankly tired of having my name tarnished by association with the
servers. The vocal majority are against the idea, and that seems to be
how decision making happens around here.
What a few of us would like to do before disposing of them is link the
IBMs together (they have interlink cables) and produce a super-box,
mostly just because we can.
I am also in favour of having some big tin in the space and hosting some VMs - I know that I will never have the opportunity to get my hands on this sort of kit outside of an office environment again.
These servers have 4 quad core CPUs and 128G of RAM. upto 4 of them can be connected together to produce a single server with 64 CPU cores and 512G or RAM
The storage solution I was dabbling with was Nexentastor, which can run on any reasonable spec x86 machine with a pair of NetApp DS14 disk shelves - to make a total of 28 FCAL disks. I also have enough 300G FCAL disks that we could populate the DS14 shelves with to give high performance storage of several TBytes.
However, it does seem as if too few people want this sort of resource in the space so I am tempted to make room in my cellar for them and let my power bill take a hit
On Wednesday, 3 October 2012 22:48:09 UTC+1, Jon Fautley wrote:
> On 3 October 2012 21:09, Martin Klang <ma...@pingdynasty.com <javascript:>> > wrote:
> > On 3 Oct 2012, at 16:49, Simon wrote:
> >> FWIW - the box I was working on was for a storage solution to use with > the VM hosting. Now that that has been scrapped :-( I will dismantle the > storage solution when I am next in > >> I think I will take it home and work on it on my power bill
> > For the opportunities this amazing haul offers us it seems silly, to me, > to just go for the cash - why don't we make the most of at least a couple > of the machines in the space? > > I imagine that the profit from ebaying one or two servers will easily > pay the leccy for a year of vm's+storage. VM's for everyone!
> I personally am all for some big iron in the space, but ultimately > it's not up to me. We have problems with space and power, and I'm > frankly tired of having my name tarnished by association with the > servers. The vocal majority are against the idea, and that seems to be > how decision making happens around here.
> What a few of us would like to do before disposing of them is link the > IBMs together (they have interlink cables) and produce a super-box, > mostly just because we can.
On 3 October 2012 21:09, Martin Klang <m...@pingdynasty.com> wrote:
> For the opportunities this amazing haul offers us it seems silly, to me, to just go for the cash - why don't we make the most of at least a couple of the machines in the space?
The major issue is that the space's internet connection really isn't
good enough to handle hosting servers over it, so these VMs are only
going to be useful to people who don't need a significant internet
connection, and also don't need any guarantee of reliability.
It seems silly to me to spend £1k/year running a server for the
benefit of Hackspace members. London Hackspace's aim is to provide
physical space, not servers, and it's not as if there's a particular
lack of commodity computing power these days.
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Russ Garrett <r...@garrett.co.uk> wrote:
> It seems silly to me to spend £1k/year running a server for the
> benefit of Hackspace members. London Hackspace's aim is to provide
> physical space, not servers, and it's not as if there's a particular
> lack of commodity computing power these days.
> --
It seems most of the interest is in the process of configuring them,
we don't have any projects that would use them full time (or at least,
not ones that needed this level of equipment). This seems like a
legitimate learning exercise like many other space activities, but
doesn't really demand them to be available forever.
Perhaps a compromise that would allow some space to experiment (not
for the whole lot, just a useful group like the IBMs) and power,
part-time, for a few weeks would be useful ? After that time, they
could spend most of their time switched off and be powered only when
someone was pursuing a project. Or be disposed of, if there was no
further interest.
On 3 October 2012 23:52, Adrian Godwin <artgod...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps a compromise that would allow some space to experiment (not
> for the whole lot, just a useful group like the IBMs) and power,
> part-time, for a few weeks would be useful ?
I have absolutely no problem with that at all.
> After that time, they could spend most of their time switched off and be
> powered only when someone was pursuing a project. Or be disposed
> of, if there was no further interest.
Well, it would be kind of a waste to have the IBMs sitting around
doing nothing when they could probably raise several grand on eBay.
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 11:52:18PM +0100, Adrian Godwin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Russ Garrett <r...@garrett.co.uk> wrote:
> > It seems silly to me to spend £1k/year running a server for the
> > benefit of Hackspace members. London Hackspace's aim is to provide
> > physical space, not servers, and it's not as if there's a particular
> > lack of commodity computing power these days.
> > --
> It seems most of the interest is in the process of configuring them
> [...] Perhaps a compromise that would allow some space to
> experiment (not for the whole lot, just a useful group like the
> IBMs) and power, part-time, for a few weeks would be useful ? After
> that time, they could spend most of their time switched off and be
> powered only when someone was pursuing a project. Or be disposed of,
> if there was no further interest.
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 03:22:06PM -0700, Simon wrote:
> I am also in favour of having some big tin in the space and hosting
> some VMs - I know that I will never have the opportunity to get my
> hands on this sort of kit outside of an office environment again.
> However, it does seem as if too few people want this sort of
> resource in the space so I am tempted to make room in my cellar for
> them and let my power bill take a hit
If not you then I'm sure there are others willing to join the queue...
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 03:22:06PM -0700, Simon wrote:
> > I am also in favour of having some big tin in the space and hosting
> > some VMs - I know that I will never have the opportunity to get my
> > hands on this sort of kit outside of an office environment again.
> > However, it does seem as if too few people want this sort of
> > resource in the space so I am tempted to make room in my cellar for
> > them and let my power bill take a hit
> If not you then I'm sure there are others willing to join the queue...
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 02:29:43PM +0100, David Murphy wrote:
> to chip in I'm in favor of the space having one reasonably beefy server
> it'd be no less useful than some of the other expensive equipment.
And take up less space, and probably be functional more often ;).
The problem is there are people out there who are much more geared up for
providing processing power on low margins. We already provide boxes that
you can get an SSH shell on, so I don't think the need is comparable to
other equipment.
You can get a decent dedicated server for £1000/year or a very generous
VPS. It'll have a much faster internet connection, free redundancy &
upgrades, and take up no space. You might like to talk to Bitfolk, who
very kindly provide the Hackspace VPS, or just get an Amazon account and
pay for what you use.
I'd love to know who's planning use this server for anything more than IRC
- I've certainly never seen any attempt to do heavy work on Babbage. Does
anyone have any ideas beyond mining Bitcoins or running pretty screensavers?
Mark
On Oct 4, 2012 4:10 PM, "Martin Dengler" <mar...@martindengler.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 02:29:43PM +0100, David Murphy wrote:
> > to chip in I'm in favor of the space having one reasonably beefy server
> > it'd be no less useful than some of the other expensive equipment.
> And take up less space, and probably be functional more often ;).
tl;dr -- we have to say no to most things and this might be one of
them, let's just be clear and polite what standard is being applied
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:04:00AM +0100, Mark Steward wrote:
> The problem is there are people out there who are much more geared up for
> providing processing power on low margins.
Yes, but you can substitute many things for "processing power" in that
sentence. I'm just arguing the point though, since...
> We already provide boxes that you can get an SSH shell on, so I
> don't think the need is comparable to other equipment.
...I take your point, completely. The request before us is fully in
the discretionary category and the line has to be drawn somewhere.
I think the tension is that I don't get the impression that existing
hardware / heavy machinery, which is out-of-use a lot and requires a
lot of maintenance, has had to pass a higher bar than has already been
met:
> Does anyone have any ideas beyond mining Bitcoins or running pretty
> screensavers?
...in this instance by Simon / Jon (storage array / mega computer
tinkering / creation -- neither requires disruption / constant power /
more dedicated space than some other heavy equipment).
For me this seems to have been a rough process because the equipment
was donated and should obvioulsy not just be binned, but appears to be
more costly to run or dispose of than anticipated.
So the point that is being missed in all of this is that* there has been a very valuable donation of equipment to the space*. We are very grateful to receive this donation and it is very lazy of our 500+ members to not readily accept this donation in the form of helping Simon and the others. This guy manually moved hundereds of kilos of valuble electronics equipment (by bike) to the space! It is stupid and lazy to not engage with the value proposition here: some (preferably all) members pull your finger out == lots of cash for the space and we get all our floorspace back. *What could be simpler?*
So can we PLEASE change this discussion to:
- WIKI: Lessons learnt from: http://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Project:ServerHardwareAuctio... - WIKI: List the volunteers on the wiki --> Link needed, cannot find the right page. - CALENDAR: List the next meeting time to do server shit really visibly on the hackspace calendar (give Simon calendar access so he can say when he is in etc then people can rally to help and we will be shot of the servers more quickly... no?)
On Friday, October 5, 2012 12:26:55 PM UTC+1, samthetechie wrote:
> So the point that is being missed in all of this is that* there has been > a very valuable donation of equipment to the space*. We are very grateful > to receive this donation and it is very lazy of our 500+ members to not > readily accept this donation in the form of helping Simon and the others. > This guy manually moved hundereds of kilos of valuble electronics > equipment (by bike) to the space! It is stupid and lazy to not engage with > the value proposition here: some (preferably all) members pull your finger > out == lots of cash for the space and we get all our floorspace back. *What > could be simpler?*
> So can we PLEASE change this discussion to:
> - WIKI: Lessons learnt from: > http://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Project:ServerHardwareAuctio... > - WIKI: List the volunteers on the wiki --> Link needed, cannot find > the right page. > - CALENDAR: List the next meeting time to do server shit really > visibly on the hackspace calendar (give Simon calendar access so he can say > when he is in etc then people can rally to help and we will be shot of the > servers more quickly... no?)
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, samthetechie wrote:
> So the point that is being missed in all of this is that there has been a very valuable donation of equipment to
> the space. We are very grateful to receive this donation and it is very lazy of our 500+ members to not readily
> accept this donation in the form of helping Simon and the others.
> This guy manually moved hundereds of kilos of valuble electronics equipment (by bike) to the space! It is stupid
> and lazy to not engage with the value proposition here: some (preferably all) members pull your finger out == lots
> of cash for the space and we get all our floorspace back. What could be simpler?
> So can we PLEASE change this discussion to:
> * WIKI: Lessons learnt from: http://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Project:ServerHardwareAuctio... > * WIKI: List the volunteers on the wiki --> Link needed, cannot find the right page.
> * CALENDAR: List the next meeting time to do server shit really visibly on the hackspace calendar (give Simon
> calendar access so he can say when he is in etc then people can rally to help and we will be shot of the
> servers more quickly... no?)
In my initial emails about the servers i said "email me if you want to help", and i've been in touch and co-ordinating with the people who have emailed me.
You said you were going to look after the lovelace -> tesla migration. When you have finished that you can get involved in other things, so:
While we are grateful to receive them, please remember that storing all
these servers is a liability, which we have to cover until they can be
sold. The latest mountain of servers arrived by van, without any
reasonable warning. Would you feel the same if someone filled the space
with valuable coal?
As for people seeming lazy, I saw what happened last time, and have no
desire to get dragged into the hours required to process servers for
comparatively little profit. My time is more valuable to me than the
potential satisfaction of selling unwanted stuff, and if it weren't, I'd
work in a charity shop. I doubt Simon himself has time to deal with them:
he's been asked to get rid of the machines from work, and has done so.
That's not a service the space should be providing, imho.
Mark
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:26 PM, samthetechie <samuelcarli...@gmail.com>wrote:
> So the point that is being missed in all of this is that* there has been
> a very valuable donation of equipment to the space*. We are very grateful
> to receive this donation and it is very lazy of our 500+ members to not
> readily accept this donation in the form of helping Simon and the others.
> This guy manually moved hundereds of kilos of valuble electronics
> equipment (by bike) to the space! It is stupid and lazy to not engage with
> the value proposition here: some (preferably all) members pull your finger
> out == lots of cash for the space and we get all our floorspace back. *What
> could be simpler?*
> So can we PLEASE change this discussion to:
> - WIKI: Lessons learnt from:
> http://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Project:ServerHardwareAuctio... > - WIKI: List the volunteers on the wiki --> Link needed, cannot find
> the right page.
> - CALENDAR: List the next meeting time to do server shit really
> visibly on the hackspace calendar (give Simon calendar access so he can say
> when he is in etc then people can rally to help and we will be shot of the
> servers more quickly... no?)
Sam, I've just read this and I'll tell you the same if you are in the
space tonight or the weekend. Lazy is one view. Other views that are
possible are:
1) people arent bothered about servers
2) people spent their lives working with servers as a job and dont
want that in the space too
3) ADHD. Personally, I think you have trouble finishing the things you
start. I've seen that and it makes people not want to pick up the
pieces after you.
Best consider these before you make a sweeping statement.
B
On 5 October 2012 12:57, Jasper Wallace <jas...@pointless.net> wrote:
>> So the point that is being missed in all of this is that there has been a very valuable donation of equipment to
>> the space. We are very grateful to receive this donation and it is very lazy of our 500+ members to not readily
>> accept this donation in the form of helping Simon and the others.
>> This guy manually moved hundereds of kilos of valuble electronics equipment (by bike) to the space! It is stupid
>> and lazy to not engage with the value proposition here: some (preferably all) members pull your finger out == lots
>> of cash for the space and we get all our floorspace back. What could be simpler?
>> So can we PLEASE change this discussion to:
>> * WIKI: Lessons learnt from: http://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Project:ServerHardwareAuctio... >> * WIKI: List the volunteers on the wiki --> Link needed, cannot find the right page.
>> * CALENDAR: List the next meeting time to do server shit really visibly on the hackspace calendar (give Simon
>> calendar access so he can say when he is in etc then people can rally to help and we will be shot of the
>> servers more quickly... no?)
> In my initial emails about the servers i said "email me if you want to
> help", and i've been in touch and co-ordinating with the people who have
> emailed me.
> You said you were going to look after the lovelace -> tesla migration.
> When you have finished that you can get involved in other things, so:
> Sam, I've just read this and I'll tell you the same if you are in the
> space tonight or the weekend. Lazy is one view. Other views that are
> possible are:
> 1) people arent bothered about servers
> 2) people spent their lives working with servers as a job and dont
> want that in the space too
> 3) ADHD. Personally, I think you have trouble finishing the things you
> start. I've seen that and it makes people not want to pick up the
> pieces after you.
> Best consider these before you make a sweeping statement.
> B
> On 5 October 2012 12:57, Jasper Wallace <jas...@pointless.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Oct 2012, samthetechie wrote:
> >> So the point that is being missed in all of this is that there has been
> a very valuable donation of equipment to
> >> the space. We are very grateful to receive this donation and it is very
> lazy of our 500+ members to not readily
> >> accept this donation in the form of helping Simon and the others.
> >> This guy manually moved hundereds of kilos of valuble electronics
> equipment (by bike) to the space! It is stupid
> >> and lazy to not engage with the value proposition here: some
> (preferably all) members pull your finger out == lots
> >> of cash for the space and we get all our floorspace back. What could be
> simpler?
> >> So can we PLEASE change this discussion to:
> >> * WIKI: Lessons learnt from:
> http://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Project:ServerHardwareAuctio... > >> * WIKI: List the volunteers on the wiki --> Link needed, cannot find
> the right page.
> >> * CALENDAR: List the next meeting time to do server shit really
> visibly on the hackspace calendar (give Simon
> >> calendar access so he can say when he is in etc then people can
> rally to help and we will be shot of the
> >> servers more quickly... no?)
> > In my initial emails about the servers i said "email me if you want to
> > help", and i've been in touch and co-ordinating with the people who have
> > emailed me.
> > You said you were going to look after the lovelace -> tesla migration.
> > When you have finished that you can get involved in other things, so:
> > PLEASE FINISH THE LOVELACE TO TESLA MIGRATION.
> While we are grateful to receive them, please remember that storing all
> these servers is a liability, which we have to cover until they can be
> sold. The latest mountain of servers arrived by van, without any
> reasonable warning. Would you feel the same if someone filled the space
> with valuable coal?
> As for people seeming lazy, I saw what happened last time, and have no
> desire to get dragged into the hours required to process servers for
> comparatively little profit. My time is more valuable to me than the
> potential satisfaction of selling unwanted stuff, and if it weren't, I'd
> work in a charity shop. I doubt Simon himself has time to deal with them:
> he's been asked to get rid of the machines from work, and has done so.
> That's not a service the space should be providing, imho.
> Mark
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 12:26 PM, samthetechie <samuelcarli...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> So the point that is being missed in all of this is that* there has been
>> a very valuable donation of equipment to the space*. We are very
>> grateful to receive this donation and it is very lazy of our 500+ members
>> to not readily accept this donation in the form of helping Simon and the
>> others.
>> This guy manually moved hundereds of kilos of valuble electronics
>> equipment (by bike) to the space! It is stupid and lazy to not engage with
>> the value proposition here: some (preferably all) members pull your finger
>> out == lots of cash for the space and we get all our floorspace back. *What
>> could be simpler?*
>> So can we PLEASE change this discussion to:
>> - WIKI: Lessons learnt from:
>> http://wiki.london.hackspace.org.uk/view/Project:ServerHardwareAuctio... >> - WIKI: List the volunteers on the wiki --> Link needed, cannot find
>> the right page.
>> - CALENDAR: List the next meeting time to do server shit really
>> visibly on the hackspace calendar (give Simon calendar access so he can say
>> when he is in etc then people can rally to help and we will be shot of the
>> servers more quickly... no?)
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Martin Dengler <mar...@martindengler.com>wrote:
> tl;dr -- we have to say no to most things and this might be one of
> them, let's just be clear and polite what standard is being applied
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 09:04:00AM +0100, Mark Steward wrote:
> > The problem is there are people out there who are much more geared up for
> > providing processing power on low margins.
> Yes, but you can substitute many things for "processing power" in that
> sentence. I'm just arguing the point though, since...
That's true, but the issue is about the appropriate level of
infrastructure. The kitchen and toilets, for example, are valuable even
though everyone has one. We don't scale that to industrial recycling or a
food processing plant, because other people can do that for us.
> > We already provide boxes that you can get an SSH shell on, so I
> > don't think the need is comparable to other equipment.
> ...I take your point, completely. The request before us is fully in
> the discretionary category and the line has to be drawn somewhere.
> I think the tension is that I don't get the impression that existing
> hardware / heavy machinery, which is out-of-use a lot and requires a
> lot of maintenance, has had to pass a higher bar than has already been
> met:
No other machines in the space cost us on the order of £1,000/year for the
benefit of only a handful of members. If any do, please enumerate them, as
we should look at fixing that. Regardless, I recommend following
Wikipedia's advice on this issue[1].
> > Does anyone have any ideas beyond mining Bitcoins or running pretty
> > screensavers?
> ...in this instance by Simon / Jon (storage array / mega computer
> tinkering / creation -- neither requires disruption / constant power /
> more dedicated space than some other heavy equipment).
That's fine, but not what was originally proposed, and Rule 8 applies[2].
I'd have no problem with making something cool with them for, say, a
weekend before they're sold.
> For me this seems to have been a rough process because the equipment
> was donated and should obvioulsy not just be binned, but appears to be
> more costly to run or dispose of than anticipated.
My understanding is that you're still discussing having a monster VM server
for the space, which is currently separate to the issue of what we do with
the servers in the meantime.
