Re: [MPlayer-dev-eng] [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg/MPlayer/rtmpdump possibly searching for a new server and hosting
On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 02:36:15PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 03:51:07AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 01:15:51PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 12:45:18PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 07:53:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi all
It is POSSIBLE that we need to move to different servers/hosting. We have been informed that the free hosting and servers we use currently may become unavailable in the future.
Thus if someone can provide the FFmpeg/MPlayer/rtmpdump projects with a free server and hosting, knows of some company who might provide us with that or wants to sponsor a server & hosting please reply ASAP
Thank you!
PS: please use reply to all so the thread does not get fragmented between mailing lists
The possibility changed to the worse we must move
no details known ATM but if you can help please join https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ffmpeg-admins used SF as i had nothing else, feel free to setup a better ML
note, to make this clear there will be no ffmpeg.org or mplayerhq.hu soon if noone helps we need a server we need volunteers to help with the move
quick update we got a new server and transferred many things already (ill write more later) what is not transferred yet is trac and mailman if someone reading this knows mailman and want to help please join ##ffmpeg-admin on freenode
we will attempt to switch MX & lists.* that is mainly for mailman to the new server now it is possible that there will be some turbulences. All people with postfix & mailman experience are welcome in ##ffmpeg-admin
people who (un)subscribed within the last 24h might need to redo that
all lists* and MX should be switched now if anyone has suggestions / experience with spam filtering with postfix dont hesitate to post the suggestions but any solution must be secure [....] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. -- Diogenes of Sinope
On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 03:54:53PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 02:36:15PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 03:51:07AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 01:15:51PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Sat, Jul 04, 2015 at 12:45:18PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 07:53:43PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi all
It is POSSIBLE that we need to move to different servers/hosting. We have been informed that the free hosting and servers we use currently may become unavailable in the future.
Thus if someone can provide the FFmpeg/MPlayer/rtmpdump projects with a free server and hosting, knows of some company who might provide us with that or wants to sponsor a server & hosting please reply ASAP
Thank you!
PS: please use reply to all so the thread does not get fragmented between mailing lists
The possibility changed to the worse we must move
no details known ATM but if you can help please join https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ffmpeg-admins used SF as i had nothing else, feel free to setup a better ML
note, to make this clear there will be no ffmpeg.org or mplayerhq.hu soon if noone helps we need a server we need volunteers to help with the move
quick update we got a new server and transferred many things already (ill write more later) what is not transferred yet is trac and mailman if someone reading this knows mailman and want to help please join ##ffmpeg-admin on freenode
we will attempt to switch MX & lists.* that is mainly for mailman to the new server now it is possible that there will be some turbulences. All people with postfix & mailman experience are welcome in ##ffmpeg-admin
people who (un)subscribed within the last 24h might need to redo that
all lists* and MX should be switched now
if anyone has suggestions / experience with spam filtering with postfix dont hesitate to post the suggestions but any solution must be secure
Also if anyone has any new mail delivery problems please tell us (#ffmpeg-devel channel on freenode or mail me / tim assuming mailing root doesnt work) There have been some changes in mail spam handling as the scripts from the old server cannot be easily used on t he new so its possible... [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB You can kill me, but you cannot change the truth.
Hi all libnova (see CC:) has offered us a OVH (France) 64gb ram xeon server with 4tb storage dedicated for the project, Administration of the server should be on our side. They can offer at least 2 years prepaid server. And might pay for longer but no gurantee for that no traffic limit, 500mbps wrant 1 gbps burst CPU: http://ark.intel.com/products/75779/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1620-v2-10M-Cach... They would ask us to put their link & small logo to our webpage footer they do not insist on that though IIUC If i hear no objections i will accept the offer and once we start using the server add their logo&link to the footer of the FFmpeg webpage. Thanks [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Democracy is the form of government in which you can choose your dictator
Michael Niedermayer <michael <at> niedermayer.cc> writes:
They would ask us to put their link & small logo to our webpage footer they do not insist on that though IIUC
Link and small logo on our footer sounds like a very good idea to me. Carl Eugen
OVH has poor quality connectivity by the way - this could lead to performance issues in some countries. Why can't you use the server videolan offered? Kieran On 14 July 2015 at 21:32, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
Hi all
libnova (see CC:) has offered us a OVH (France) 64gb ram xeon server with 4tb storage dedicated for the project, Administration of the server should be on our side. They can offer at least 2 years prepaid server. And might pay for longer but no gurantee for that
no traffic limit, 500mbps wrant 1 gbps burst CPU: http://ark.intel.com/products/75779/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1620-v2-10M-Cach...
They would ask us to put their link & small logo to our webpage footer they do not insist on that though IIUC
If i hear no objections i will accept the offer and once we start using the server add their logo&link to the footer of the FFmpeg webpage.
Thanks
[...]
-- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Democracy is the form of government in which you can choose your dictator
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:42:30PM +0100, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
OVH has poor quality connectivity by the way - this could lead to performance issues in some countries.
Has anyone done some hoster connectivity comparissions /tests ? it would be interresting to see what the differences are. Also which hosters/providers does the community recommand?
Why can't you use the server videolan offered?
short awnser, videolan has not offered a server. longer awnser, videolan IIUC would be willing to host some of our services on their existing server but this would require a "quite a bit" of work. videolan uses LXC we do not. also videolan of course would have to agree to everything, its their server of course ... We already have our own dedicated servers, i just would like to get better machines and without any FFmpeg developer having to pay for them I dont think we should give up having our own dedicated servers [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Its not that you shouldnt use gotos but rather that you should write readable code and code with gotos often but not always is less readable
On 7/15/15, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:42:30PM +0100, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
OVH has poor quality connectivity by the way - this could lead to performance issues in some countries.
Has anyone done some hoster connectivity comparissions /tests ? it would be interresting to see what the differences are.
Trying to download from OVH (http://bhs.proof.ovh.net/files/100Mio.dat) - In China's home network (Shanghai): avg. 9 KB/s - In DigitalOcean's LAX1 (Los Angeles) data center: avg. 11 KB/s - In DigitalOcean's NYC3 (New York) data center: over 10 MB/s - In AWS EC2 us-west-2 (Oregon, US): over 2 MB/s - From fate.ffmpeg.org (somewhere in France): about 13 MB/s In comparison: DigitalOcean FRA1 (Frankfurt I believe) (http://speedtest-fra1.digitalocean.com/100mb.test) - China: avg. 2 KB/s (yeah, that's right) - DO LAX1: avg. 10 MB/s - DO NYC3: avg. 10 MB/s - AWS us-west-2: avg. 2 MB/s - fate: 100 MB/s In comparison: AWS EC2 eu-central-1 (curl -o /dev/null http://eu-central-1.ec2.cloudharmony.net/probe/test304kb.jpg) - China avg. 5 KB/s - DO LAX1: avg. 10 KB/s - DO NYC3: >400 KB/s (can't be measured accurately) - AWS us-west-2: >100 KB/s (can't be measured accurately) - fate: >2 MB/s (can't be measured accurately) Only the China test is actually from a home connection. Everything else is from a dedicated server connection. HTH. Timothy
Le septidi 27 messidor, an CCXXIII, Timothy Gu a écrit :
Trying to download from OVH (http://bhs.proof.ovh.net/files/100Mio.dat)
- In China's home network (Shanghai): avg. 9 KB/s - In DigitalOcean's LAX1 (Los Angeles) data center: avg. 11 KB/s - In DigitalOcean's NYC3 (New York) data center: over 10 MB/s - In AWS EC2 us-west-2 (Oregon, US): over 2 MB/s - From fate.ffmpeg.org (somewhere in France): about 13 MB/s
In comparison: DigitalOcean FRA1 (Frankfurt I believe) (http://speedtest-fra1.digitalocean.com/100mb.test)
- China: avg. 2 KB/s (yeah, that's right) - DO LAX1: avg. 10 MB/s - DO NYC3: avg. 10 MB/s - AWS us-west-2: avg. 2 MB/s - fate: 100 MB/s
Both these servers have a dual stack IPv4 and IPv6: could the speed difference you observe be linked to whether your client has IPv6 or not? Regards, -- Nicolas George
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 02:46:39AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:42:30PM +0100, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
OVH has poor quality connectivity by the way - this could lead to performance issues in some countries.
Has anyone done some hoster connectivity comparissions /tests ? it would be interresting to see what the differences are.
Also which hosters/providers does the community recommand?
noone ? nothing ? thats ok but then i hope also noone will complain if we end up with a poor hoster, because we will likely I did look a bit around and i was not able to find anything that made me smarter to make this choice. libnova said they had no problems with OVH, noone else suggested anything else. kieran said OVH has poor connectivity, timothys tests dont really point in any clear direction either If people would suggest which hosters are good (quality, hw, service, connectivity, in a legally stable region not too hostile to free multimedia sw, ...) then we could suggest these to sponsors in the absence of the sponsor having a preferrance. [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- Albert Einstein
On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 03:57:03 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
Also which hosters/providers does the community recommand?
noone ? nothing ?
I would like to wait to find a more permanent host, a "2 year maybe" will mean doing this all over again in 24 months. but if you guys dont mind, i am not going to object. I like kieranks' offer. although i dont know the service hours or timeframe of hosting. fastly just asked if we needed a host, seems like they host (or just cdn?) some other open source projects too. not sure if we are compatable with that. https://www.fastly.com/about/open-source i'm curious about the offer from nexcess, what specs are they offering? although its hosted in the usa. -compn
I like kieranks' offer. although i dont know the service hours or timeframe of hosting.
So the machine sits in our datacentre next to my office, has a 100meg connection. Plenty more spare machines here ffmpeg could use but they're all a bit old. Kieran
On 15 Jul, Michael Niedermayer wrote :
longer awnser, videolan IIUC would be willing to host some of our services on their existing server but this would require a "quite a bit" of work. videolan uses LXC we do not.
Indeed, and there is a good reason for that, called security.
also videolan of course would have to agree to everything, its their server of course ...
VideoLAN has very powerfull machines, connected in a correct datacenter, with a contract, that will outlive any single member. Don't take it bad, but seeing the discussions, and the way you manage your roots and services migration, you don't seem to care that much about being correctly deployed, but to do it fast. LXC provides service separation and avoid security issues to propagate, and allows also reuse of VideoLAN infrastructure, if needed (SMTP, same Web proxy, etc...). It allows VLC and non-VLC services to not conflict, and allows people to have only access to one LXC. I understand that you do not care about such security, but we do. With my kindest regards, -- Jean-Baptiste Kempf http://www.jbkempf.com/ - +33 672 704 734 Sent from my Electronic Device
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:30:26PM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On 15 Jul, Michael Niedermayer wrote :
longer awnser, videolan IIUC would be willing to host some of our services on their existing server but this would require a "quite a bit" of work. videolan uses LXC we do not.
Indeed, and there is a good reason for that, called security.
also videolan of course would have to agree to everything, its their server of course ...
VideoLAN has very powerfull machines, connected in a correct datacenter, with a contract, that will outlive any single member.
Don't take it bad, but seeing the discussions, and the way you manage your roots and services migration, you don't seem to care that much about being correctly deployed, but to do it fast.
iam not taking it bad but when you are being told your boxes could be shutdown without prior notice by the new managment, then yes you try to move fast, which is what we did. Not because thats a great thing to do but because it was needed also iam not doing the work by choice but because noone else volunteered, i would very much prefer if someone who actually has experience with this kind of thing to do the work. And that i could concentrate on FFmpeg work instead of admin work
LXC provides service separation and avoid security issues to propagate, and allows also reuse of VideoLAN infrastructure, if needed (SMTP, same Web proxy, etc...). It allows VLC and non-VLC services to not conflict, and allows people to have only access to one LXC.
I understand that you do not care about such security, but we do.
i think you misunderstand, i do want to move to full virtualization for security and for easier migration of services between servers and had mentioned this previously but as with everything in a volunteer project "want" alone does not make things happen. In that sense if someone wants to work on moving some of our services to full virtualization like qemu/kvm or even just LXC, please mail root for this to be discussed or if theres more of a general discussion like LXC vs qemu/kvm then of course the public ffmpeg-devel list [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB The real ebay dictionary, page 2 "100% positive feedback" - "All either got their money back or didnt complain" "Best seller ever, very honest" - "Seller refunded buyer after failed scam"
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:16:53PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:30:26PM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On 15 Jul, Michael Niedermayer wrote :
longer awnser, videolan IIUC would be willing to host some of our services on their existing server but this would require a "quite a bit" of work. videolan uses LXC we do not.
Indeed, and there is a good reason for that, called security.
also videolan of course would have to agree to everything, its their server of course ...
VideoLAN has very powerfull machines, connected in a correct datacenter, with a contract, that will outlive any single member.
Don't take it bad, but seeing the discussions, and the way you manage your roots and services migration, you don't seem to care that much about being correctly deployed, but to do it fast.
iam not taking it bad but when you are being told your boxes could be shutdown without prior notice by the new managment, then yes you try to move fast, which is what we did. Not because thats a great thing to do but because it was needed
also speaking of that, id like to take the opertunity to thank everyone who helped making that quick move to the current servers possible That is at least alex, arpi, fabrice, beastd, kieran, reimar, roberto, lou, tim, ubitux and probably more who i have forgotten to list In principle we could stay at these servers but i think its better if we use the time available now to move things to some free, higher end servers and hosting and also if possible (volunteers) move to something like LXC or qemu/kvm in the process and have services properly seperated That would give us better servers, more robust hosting than what you get with a 50euro/mo box. more security and at less cost. [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong. -- Voltaire
On 17 July 2015 at 22:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:16:53PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:30:26PM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On 15 Jul, Michael Niedermayer wrote :
longer awnser, videolan IIUC would be willing to host some of our services on their existing server but this would require a "quite a bit" of work. videolan uses LXC we do not.
Indeed, and there is a good reason for that, called security.
also videolan of course would have to agree to everything, its their server of course ...
VideoLAN has very powerfull machines, connected in a correct datacenter, with a contract, that will outlive any single member.
Don't take it bad, but seeing the discussions, and the way you manage your roots and services migration, you don't seem to care that much about being correctly deployed, but to do it fast.
iam not taking it bad but when you are being told your boxes could be shutdown without prior notice by the new managment, then yes you try to move fast, which is what we did. Not because thats a great thing to do but because it was needed
also speaking of that, id like to take the opertunity to thank everyone who helped making that quick move to the current servers possible That is at least alex, arpi, fabrice, beastd, kieran, reimar, roberto, lou, tim, ubitux and probably more who i have forgotten to list
In principle we could stay at these servers but i think its better if we use the time available now to move things to some free, higher end servers and hosting and also if possible (volunteers) move to something like LXC or qemu/kvm in the process and have services properly seperated
That would give us better servers, more robust hosting than what you get with a 50euro/mo box. more security and at less cost.
Sorry but this is a bizzare and short-sighted goal. Whilst I am sure most of the offers mean well it's much better to get help from the community because at least we know who they are, where the data is stored, easily contactable etc. The person offering free hosting could just leave their company and the machine wiped one day. Kieran
Hi, On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Kieran Kunhya <kierank@obe.tv> wrote:
On 17 July 2015 at 22:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:16:53PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:30:26PM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On 15 Jul, Michael Niedermayer wrote :
longer awnser, videolan IIUC would be willing to host some of our services on their existing server but this would require a "quite a bit" of work. videolan uses LXC we do not.
Indeed, and there is a good reason for that, called security.
also videolan of course would have to agree to everything, its their server of course ...
VideoLAN has very powerfull machines, connected in a correct datacenter, with a contract, that will outlive any single member.
Don't take it bad, but seeing the discussions, and the way you manage your roots and services migration, you don't seem to care that much about being correctly deployed, but to do it fast.
iam not taking it bad but when you are being told your boxes could be shutdown without prior notice by the new managment, then yes you try to move fast, which is what we did. Not because thats a great thing to do but because it was needed
also speaking of that, id like to take the opertunity to thank everyone who helped making that quick move to the current servers possible That is at least alex, arpi, fabrice, beastd, kieran, reimar, roberto, lou, tim, ubitux and probably more who i have forgotten to list
In principle we could stay at these servers but i think its better if we use the time available now to move things to some free, higher end servers and hosting and also if possible (volunteers) move to something like LXC or qemu/kvm in the process and have services properly seperated
That would give us better servers, more robust hosting than what you get with a 50euro/mo box. more security and at less cost.
Sorry but this is a bizzare and short-sighted goal. Whilst I am sure most of the offers mean well it's much better to get help from the community because at least we know who they are, where the data is stored, easily contactable etc. The person offering free hosting could just leave their company and the machine wiped one day.
J-B offered that videolan will host ffmpeg. I, for one, would be thrilled if that were to happen. I trust videolan a lot. Ronald
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 08:04:37PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Kieran Kunhya <kierank@obe.tv> wrote:
On 17 July 2015 at 22:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:16:53PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:30:26PM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On 15 Jul, Michael Niedermayer wrote :
longer awnser, videolan IIUC would be willing to host some of our services on their existing server but this would require a "quite a bit" of work. videolan uses LXC we do not.
Indeed, and there is a good reason for that, called security.
also videolan of course would have to agree to everything, its their server of course ...
VideoLAN has very powerfull machines, connected in a correct datacenter, with a contract, that will outlive any single member.
Don't take it bad, but seeing the discussions, and the way you manage your roots and services migration, you don't seem to care that much about being correctly deployed, but to do it fast.
iam not taking it bad but when you are being told your boxes could be shutdown without prior notice by the new managment, then yes you try to move fast, which is what we did. Not because thats a great thing to do but because it was needed
also speaking of that, id like to take the opertunity to thank everyone who helped making that quick move to the current servers possible That is at least alex, arpi, fabrice, beastd, kieran, reimar, roberto, lou, tim, ubitux and probably more who i have forgotten to list
In principle we could stay at these servers but i think its better if we use the time available now to move things to some free, higher end servers and hosting and also if possible (volunteers) move to something like LXC or qemu/kvm in the process and have services properly seperated
That would give us better servers, more robust hosting than what you get with a 50euro/mo box. more security and at less cost.
Sorry but this is a bizzare and short-sighted goal. Whilst I am sure most of the offers mean well it's much better to get help from the community because at least we know who they are, where the data is stored, easily contactable etc. The person offering free hosting could just leave their company and the machine wiped one day.
J-B offered that videolan will host ffmpeg. I, for one, would be thrilled if that were to happen. I trust videolan a lot.
so do i, i trust JB, but will JB still be in charge in 5 years? in 10 years? can we trust whoever will come after JB ? I think FFmpeg should stay with a "neutral" provider/hoster. We did something like this once when moving away from sourceforge and it ultimately resulted in the libav fork. [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners. -- Vladimir Lenin
Hi, If it helps anyone, just to clarify, we offer that the OVH server is contracted to the ffmpeg group name, not ours, in an account over the control of the community, not libnova. We'll just pay it for 2 years. Regards, AG. ---- Antonio Guillermo Martínez Largo Libnova, SL Paseo de la Castellana, 153 - Madrid [t] +34 91 449 08 94 [f] +34 91 141 21 21 www.libnova.es -----Mensaje original----- De: Michael Niedermayer [mailto:michael@niedermayer.cc] Enviado el: sábado, 18 de julio de 2015 4:19 Para: FFmpeg development discussions and patches CC: Antonio Guillermo Martínez (libnova); rtmpdump@mplayerhq.hu; mplayer-dev-eng@mplayerhq.hu Asunto: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg/MPlayer/rtmpdump possibly searching for a new server and hosting On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 08:04:37PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Kieran Kunhya <kierank@obe.tv> wrote:
On 17 July 2015 at 22:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:16:53PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:30:26PM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On 15 Jul, Michael Niedermayer wrote :
longer awnser, videolan IIUC would be willing to host some of our services on their existing server but this would require a "quite a bit" of work. videolan uses LXC we do not.
Indeed, and there is a good reason for that, called security.
also videolan of course would have to agree to everything, its their server of course ...
VideoLAN has very powerfull machines, connected in a correct datacenter, with a contract, that will outlive any single member.
Don't take it bad, but seeing the discussions, and the way you manage your roots and services migration, you don't seem to care that much about being correctly deployed, but to do it fast.
iam not taking it bad but when you are being told your boxes could be shutdown without prior notice by the new managment, then yes you try to move fast, which is what we did. Not because thats a great thing to do but because it was needed
also speaking of that, id like to take the opertunity to thank everyone who helped making that quick move to the current servers possible That is at least alex, arpi, fabrice, beastd, kieran, reimar, roberto, lou, tim, ubitux and probably more who i have forgotten to list
In principle we could stay at these servers but i think its better if we use the time available now to move things to some free, higher end servers and hosting and also if possible (volunteers) move to something like LXC or qemu/kvm in the process and have services properly seperated
That would give us better servers, more robust hosting than what you get with a 50euro/mo box. more security and at less cost.
Sorry but this is a bizzare and short-sighted goal. Whilst I am sure most of the offers mean well it's much better to get help from the community because at least we know who they are, where the data is stored, easily contactable etc. The person offering free hosting could just leave their company and the machine wiped one day.
J-B offered that videolan will host ffmpeg. I, for one, would be thrilled if that were to happen. I trust videolan a lot.
so do i, i trust JB, but will JB still be in charge in 5 years? in 10 years? can we trust whoever will come after JB ? I think FFmpeg should stay with a "neutral" provider/hoster. We did something like this once when moving away from sourceforge and it ultimately resulted in the libav fork. [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners. -- Vladimir Lenin
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 04:19:15 +0200 Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 08:04:37PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Kieran Kunhya <kierank@obe.tv> wrote:
On 17 July 2015 at 22:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:16:53PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:30:26PM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
On 15 Jul, Michael Niedermayer wrote : > longer awnser, > videolan IIUC would be willing to host some of our services > on their existing server but this would require a "quite a > bit" of work. videolan uses LXC we do not.
Indeed, and there is a good reason for that, called security.
> also videolan of course would have to agree to everything, > its their server of course ...
VideoLAN has very powerfull machines, connected in a correct datacenter, with a contract, that will outlive any single member.
Don't take it bad, but seeing the discussions, and the way you manage your roots and services migration, you don't seem to care that much about being correctly deployed, but to do it fast.
iam not taking it bad but when you are being told your boxes could be shutdown without prior notice by the new managment, then yes you try to move fast, which is what we did. Not because thats a great thing to do but because it was needed
also speaking of that, id like to take the opertunity to thank everyone who helped making that quick move to the current servers possible That is at least alex, arpi, fabrice, beastd, kieran, reimar, roberto, lou, tim, ubitux and probably more who i have forgotten to list
In principle we could stay at these servers but i think its better if we use the time available now to move things to some free, higher end servers and hosting and also if possible (volunteers) move to something like LXC or qemu/kvm in the process and have services properly seperated
That would give us better servers, more robust hosting than what you get with a 50euro/mo box. more security and at less cost.
Sorry but this is a bizzare and short-sighted goal. Whilst I am sure most of the offers mean well it's much better to get help from the community because at least we know who they are, where the data is stored, easily contactable etc. The person offering free hosting could just leave their company and the machine wiped one day.
J-B offered that videolan will host ffmpeg. I, for one, would be thrilled if that were to happen. I trust videolan a lot.
so do i, i trust JB, but will JB still be in charge in 5 years? in 10 years? can we trust whoever will come after JB ?
I think FFmpeg should stay with a "neutral" provider/hoster.
I also trust JB. But I remember the libav fork and some vlc devels/admins during that time. http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2011-January/106458.html i think vlc would be a good host as long as JB is there. -compn
Le decadi 30 messidor, an CCXXIII, compn a écrit :
I also trust JB.
But I remember the libav fork and some vlc devels/admins during that time.
http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2011-January/106458.html
i think vlc would be a good host as long as JB is there.
Sorry for not helping in this issue, but I have a few side projects that really need to show progress before summer's end. Regarding the trust issue for accepting hosting: To avoid the project's servers from being hijacked by a rogue operator, I believe the three following conditions are enough: C1. control of the DNS domain; C2. a working efficient deployment procedure; C3. up-to-date backups of the data (including the deployment procedure, but the volatile data is the most important) kept by trusted people. If a project has that, then it can undermine any rogue operator's doings by migrating the server to a new hosting in a few hours. And of course, a project should have that even if it does not fear rogue operators. As far as I understand, FFmpeg is lacking C2, and possibly C3, because the admins never got on to it; I definitely can not blame people for procrastinating. And I read in this thread that the current hosting crisis is motivating them to actually do it. Therefore, I believe the trust issue, the fear of rogue operators, should not be the main guide of the choice. Regarding OVH: About a year ago, a group of people I belong to lost their hosting brutally and decided to switch to a commercial dedicated server. The discussion went between OVH and Online, the two major French host providers. Online was finally chosen, because a few members had a better experience with it, but I do not remember the specifics. Personally, I consider JB's offer to be very interesting, even if JB were to leave. After all, it would only cause a problem if he were to leave abruptly AND if his replacement were untrustworthy AND if an attempt at hijacking happened soon after. I do not believe that anyone would want to hijack FFmpeg badly enough to infiltrate VLC and then assassinate JB. I also consider sponsors offers "we pay a dedicated server but the contract is in your name" to be very good: if the sponsor stops, we have until the end of the payed term to find new hosting. Why not accept both offers?: VLC for the main hosting, and a commercial dedicated payed by a sponsor as a secondary, kept in sync and ready to take over if the VLC hosting fails. The secondary does not need to be as powerful as the primary, making it easier to find sponsors. Well, since I am not actually helping in the work, this is a bunch of yakafokon¹, I hope some of it was useful. Regards, -- Nicolas George 1 : yakafokon = "'y a qu'à, 'faut qu'on" = "there's only to, we must" in French.
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 12:59:34PM +0200, Nicolas George wrote:
Le decadi 30 messidor, an CCXXIII, compn a écrit :
I also trust JB.
But I remember the libav fork and some vlc devels/admins during that time.
http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2011-January/106458.html
i think vlc would be a good host as long as JB is there.
Sorry for not helping in this issue, but I have a few side projects that really need to show progress before summer's end.
Regarding the trust issue for accepting hosting:
To avoid the project's servers from being hijacked by a rogue operator, I believe the three following conditions are enough:
C1. control of the DNS domain;
C2. a working efficient deployment procedure;
C3. up-to-date backups of the data (including the deployment procedure, but the volatile data is the most important) kept by trusted people.
If a project has that, then it can undermine any rogue operator's doings by migrating the server to a new hosting in a few hours.
technically yes, socially i think this can be very hard though Someone hypothetically trying such takeover will only do so if he has support from some developers already. And switching DNS and servers when there is no unanimous agreement would be a difficult step, a step that in itself could split the community. We should avoid this at "all costs". [...]
Why not accept both offers?: VLC for the main hosting, and a commercial dedicated payed by a sponsor as a secondary, kept in sync and ready to take over if the VLC hosting fails. The secondary does not need to be as powerful as the primary, making it easier to find sponsors.
there are more than these 2 offers theres also a offer from dreamhack and one from nexcess.net and another company which wants to sponsor us either financially or through a server IIUC and i agree we should pick 2 for redundancy. about powerfull our server which we used mostly in the last 4 years had 8gb ram and a X5355 @ 2.66GHz and the 2nd box 16gb ram and a E5345 @ 2.33GHz these where more than sufficient for our use. Only trac benefits from a fast cpu and memory, because trac is slow (this is mostly due to its rendering not the db actually IIRC) so while i sure prefer a powerfull box ... who would not. The only thing where anyone would ever notice a difference is trac unless we add more slow-ware. personally, and so far, the dreamhack hosting seemed like a rather interresting ofer to me, theres no trust issue i belive, we have a hoster we can talk to (dreamhack) if we need to. we could even move trac to the 3.7ghz i7 hetzner box. if we wanted maximum trac performance. That i7 might even beat a high end xeon with many cores but lower ghz for trac not that a few % is really important though [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves? -- Diogenes of Sinope
On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 05:43:41PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote: [...]
we could even move trac to the 3.7ghz i7 hetzner box. if we wanted
sorry mixed them up, hetzner is a E3-1246 v3 @ 3.50GHz the OVH one would be E5-1620 v2 3.7ghz not that it matters [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Why not whip the teacher when the pupil misbehaves? -- Diogenes of Sinope
participants (10)
-
Antonio Guillermo Martínez (libnova) -
Carl Eugen Hoyos -
compn -
Jean-Baptiste Kempf -
Kieran Kunhya -
Michael Niedermayer -
Michael Niedermayer -
Nicolas George -
Ronald S. Bultje -
Timothy Gu