Re: [rtmpdump] [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 (3)
-
compn -
Michael Niedermayer -
Nicolas George