[volunteergrid2-l] New Member

[Shawn Willden]

Welcome to the grid, Chris!

Your network speed is marginal, but I guess we can live with it ;-)

As for storage, the guidelines are minimum of 500 GB, maximum of 1 TB.
 Actually we don't care if you provide more than 1 TB, but we ask that you
(a) not use more than you provide and (b) not use more than 1 TB.  So, your
numbers sound perfectly fine.

The reason we set an upper bound is to keep all of the storage nodes in the
grid in roughly the same capacity range, so we don't get one massive
user/provider who puts up a 10 TB node and then proceeds to bury every node
but his own.  As a practical matter network speeds probably won't make it
possible to bury the grid anyway, but... that's the rationale.

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Christoph Langguth <
christoph at rosenkeller.org> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> first off, thanks for having set up this project and for accepting me into
> it! :-)
>
> So here's a bit about myself: I'm administering the server of a student's
> club in Jena, Germany (rosenkeller.org). We are essentially self-hosted --
> we have our own physical Linux machine acting as WWW and mail server, and as
> a gateway for the internal machines. Thankfully, we're connected directly to
> the University network with Gigabit Ethernet, and all of that with no cost
> for us (University maintains the infrastructure) :-)
>
> So that little server is essentially where almost all of the pretty
> important data is -- like our web presence, and "professional" and personal
> mails and files of our staff and members.
>
> The main reason for applying here is backup provisioning. While we do make
> local backups through backuppc, we don't really have a working solution
> which would survive a catastrophic event (like the office burning down).
> Offsite backup is always a good idea, but we simply can't really afford
> commercial solutions. Well, we probably could if I insisted really hard that
> backups actually are important and worth the "insurance" fee, but hey:
>
> - a "social" distributed storage where we get the benefits for free and can
> offer the same for other people is just more inline with my personal point
> of view
> - it's easier if "management" is not involved in these things, so it's more
> hassle-free for me as well if I can provide a working solution without much
> "organizational" overhead (managing bills etc.)
> - finally, it's simply fun to get into new technologies :-)
>
> When I said we don't have a working solution, I actually cheated a bit: we
> do have a solution based on wuala ( http://wuala.com ). This worked pretty
> well until a few days ago, when they announced that their storage trading
> would not be supported anymore. If you're interested, here's the (mostly
> disappointed) feedback from affected users: https://forum.wuala.com/**
> viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2231<https://forum.wuala.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=2231>. I am one of the many users who think that that decision was made more
> because of strategic than technical reasons (LaCie bought wuala some time
> ago...), but that is speculation and convincing responses from the
> developers are scarce.
>
> It is actually in that forum that I learned about Tahoe LAFS. I was
> intrigued, so I just installed it and tried it out with my own little
> "infrastructure". It looked promising, but obviously, a local infrastructure
> is not terribly useful if the goal is off-site storage. So this is how I
> ended up finding VG2 and thinking it's just the right thing to do, so here I
> am :-)
>
> Now that you know where I'm trying to go, here's a little summary of how I
> intend to contribute:
>
> - Server machine is up 24/7 (well, at least it should, unless Murphy's law
> strikes)
> - Connectivity is Gigabit Ethernet, so both up- and downloads should
> normally work decently fast :-)
>
> There are a few open questions left, most of which I'll probably bug you
> with in subsequent mails (like what is the best strategy for backing up
> etc). One thing probably needs to be sorted out first though, so here it
> goes straight away: The volume that we need to back up is not terribly high,
> at the moment it's around 60 GB for a full backup, and I expect it to grow
> only slowly.
>
> At the moment, we only have one internal disk (500 GB), of which some 250GB
> are free. Of course, even for local backups a second disk is required, and
> the same would go for the storage provided to tahoe. Therefore, we intend to
> buy an additional disk for that purpose. If I'm not mistaken, you have a
> requirement of 1TB or more -- is that still up-to-date? From my point of
> view, the most sensible thing would be to buy a 1.5TB or 2TB disk, and use
> it as the target both for local backups, and for tahoe. Subtracting local
> backups, this should leave (at least) around 1 or 1.5 TB for tahoe.
>
> It will probably still take a few weeks until everything will be set up
> here, and there most probably will be a few round trips with questions I
> have, but for starters -- do you think the above makes sense? Do you have
> any particular hints or comments?
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> volunteergrid2-l mailing list
> volunteergrid2-l at tahoe-lafs.org
> http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volunteergrid2-l
> http://bigpig.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome
>



-- 
Shawn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/volunteergrid2-l/attachments/20111007/0b147de5/attachment.html>