Обсуждение: Huh? What is this?
I know that this link is only available to people on the sysadmin team, but for reference: https://pmt.postgresql.org/changeset/478 What is this? A site that has not been discussed at all (AFAIK - given that it seems to happen a lot lately, maybe I'm having email delivery issues?) suddenly appears in the configuration of a machine that is supposedly managed by the community? A system user is added to one of our servers that already does other things. We normally discuss things before we add new services to machines, don't we? Especially when it's a box that shares data with some of our most vital services, like archives. Also, our current policy is to as much as possible *isolate* services using VM technology - this is especially important for such critical services. Also, there appears to be exactly zero documentation about it, but I assume that's just a matter of time. Oh, and it appears that the apache configuration isn't in the automatic backup. BTW, the docs also says that postgresqlconference.org is only supposed to be there temporarily during reprovisioning - is that still so, or should the documentation be fixed wrt that? //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > I know that this link is only available to people on the sysadmin team, > but for reference: > https://pmt.postgresql.org/changeset/478 > > What is this? A site that has not been discussed at all (AFAIK - given > that it seems to happen a lot lately, maybe I'm having email delivery It was a test site for the scripts that we had from Marc. > > We normally discuss things before we add new services to machines, don't > we? Especially when it's a box that shares data with some of our most > vital services, like archives. Also, our current policy is to as much as > possible *isolate* services using VM technology - this is especially > important for such critical services. Where is this policy written? And we have never applied that policy to Linux hosts. Let's be consistent here please. > > Also, there appears to be exactly zero documentation about it, but I > assume that's just a matter of time. Oh, and it appears that the apache > configuration isn't in the automatic backup. You know.. instead of complaining you simply could have added it yourself and said, "BTW... this was overlooked". > > BTW, the docs also says that postgresqlconference.org is only supposed > to be there temporarily during reprovisioning - is that still so, or > should the documentation be fixed wrt that? > It is temporary. We are pushing a bunch of hardware around. It will be moved after EAST. Joshua D. Drake
Magnus Hagander wrote: > I know that this link is only available to people on the sysadmin team, > but for reference: > https://pmt.postgresql.org/changeset/478 > > What is this? A site that has not been discussed at all (AFAIK - given > that it seems to happen a lot lately, maybe I'm having email delivery > issues?) suddenly appears in the configuration of a machine that is Actually now that I look at it, I don't think my explanation was accurate. IIRC archives2 was the alias I used when migrating archives to community2. But I could be wrong there too :P > supposedly managed by the community? A system user is added to one of > our servers that already does other things. > Community2 was never really pushed into the community infrastructure. It is a community machine. There are other sites on there as well, pgsqlrpms for example. If we want to move those to a different machine and break the bottle on community2 I am fine with that. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
Magnus Hagander wrote: > Also, there appears to be exactly zero documentation about it, but I > assume that's just a matter of time. Oh, and it appears that the apache > configuration isn't in the automatic backup. I just checked and you are incorrect. httpd.conf was in the automatic backup: [root@community2 auto-backup]# ls addfile.sh backup.sh community2.commandprompt.com [root@community2 auto-backup]# ./addfile.sh community2.commandprompt.com /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf Adding /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf to /auto-backup/community2.commandprompt.com/.config Adding /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf to SVN and committing svn: warning: 'community2.commandprompt.com/etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf' is already under version control Sending community2.commandprompt.com/.config Transmitting file data . Committed revision 483. I also verified that it runs properly from cron: Feb 23 19:30:01 community2 crond[32369]: (root) CMD (/auto-backup/backup.sh community2.commandprompt.com) Feb 23 20:30:01 community2 crond[17728]: (root) CMD (/auto-backup/backup.sh community2.commandprompt.com) Feb 23 21:30:01 community2 crond[3053]: (root) CMD (/auto-backup/backup.sh community2.commandprompt.com) Feb 23 22:30:01 community2 crond[20855]: (root) CMD (/auto-backup/backup.sh community2.commandprompt.com) Feb 23 23:30:01 community2 crond[6189]: (root) CMD (/auto-backup/backup.sh community2.commandprompt.com) Feb 24 00:30:01 community2 crond[23955]: (root) CMD (/auto-backup/backup.sh community2.commandprompt.com) Feb 24 01:30:02 community2 crond[10052]: (root) CMD (/auto-backup/backup.sh community2.commandprompt.com) Feb 24 02:30:01 community2 crond[27811]: (root) CMD (/auto-backup/backup.sh community2.commandprompt.com) Feb 24 03:30:01 community2 crond[17309]: (root) CMD (/auto-backup/backup.sh community2.commandprompt.com) So I am not sure what you were looking at? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 07:57 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > I know that this link is only available to people on the sysadmin team, > > but for reference: > > https://pmt.postgresql.org/changeset/478 > > > > > > What is this? A site that has not been discussed at all (AFAIK - given > > that it seems to happen a lot lately, maybe I'm having email delivery > > It was a test site for the scripts that we had from Marc. Are we really talking about the same thing? What does the user "pgsqldocs" have to do with the archives - is it misnamed? Assuming those are the scripts you got from Marc - or are you talking about yet another thing here? > > We normally discuss things before we add new services to machines, don't > > we? Especially when it's a box that shares data with some of our most > > vital services, like archives. Also, our current policy is to as much as > > possible *isolate* services using VM technology - this is especially > > important for such critical services. > > Where is this policy written? And we have never applied that policy to > Linux hosts. Let's be consistent here please. I don't think it's written down, and you are very well aware of that. But what you're basically saying is you want us to move all the stuff off the linux boxes then, to be consistent? (there's still the "as much as possible" part, but if we're willing to modify stuff we already have out there, we could certainly make more moves towards that) And I hope you're not seriously questioning the policy of discussing things before we do them? > > Also, there appears to be exactly zero documentation about it, but I > > assume that's just a matter of time. Oh, and it appears that the apache > > configuration isn't in the automatic backup. > > You know.. instead of complaining you simply could have added it > yourself and said, "BTW... this was overlooked". I didn't install it, so I don't know *what* to put in there. The person who installed it would know what's actually involved in it, and should add those files. I'm not saying I've never missed doing that myself, certainly, but I think the only thing that makes sense is that whomever made the changes need to document them, since others don't actually know what's involved. > > BTW, the docs also says that postgresqlconference.org is only supposed > > to be there temporarily during reprovisioning - is that still so, or > > should the documentation be fixed wrt that? > > > > It is temporary. We are pushing a bunch of hardware around. It will be > moved after EAST. > Ok - just checking that the plans hadn't changed on that one. //Magnus
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 08:20 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > Also, there appears to be exactly zero documentation about it, but I > > assume that's just a matter of time. Oh, and it appears that the apache > > configuration isn't in the automatic backup. > > I just checked and you are incorrect. httpd.conf was in the automatic > backup: It could be that I was confused by the missing commit messages. //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 07:57 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> I know that this link is only available to people on the sysadmin team, >>> but for reference: >>> https://pmt.postgresql.org/changeset/478 >> >>> What is this? A site that has not been discussed at all (AFAIK - given >>> that it seems to happen a lot lately, maybe I'm having email delivery >> It was a test site for the scripts that we had from Marc. > > Are we really talking about the same thing? What does the user > "pgsqldocs" have to do with the archives - is it misnamed? Assuming > those are the scripts you got from Marc - or are you talking about yet > another thing here? I think we are. I thought you were talking about archives2. pgsqldocs is www.postgresqldocs.org >> Where is this policy written? And we have never applied that policy to >> Linux hosts. Let's be consistent here please. > > I don't think it's written down, and you are very well aware of that. Yes I am. Please fill in pmt with the appropriate policy. > But what you're basically saying is you want us to move all the stuff > off the linux boxes then, to be consistent? Funny. I almost laughed at that one. My point was the VM policy has never applied to Linux. We don't use VMs on linux (although I have never been sure why). > > And I hope you're not seriously questioning the policy of discussing > things before we do them? > No, I am not. I should have posted that we were going to add pgsqldocs. That is my bad. > I didn't install it, so I don't know *what* to put in there. The person > who installed it would know what's actually involved in it, and should > add those files. I did it and if you see my other post you will see that I verified that it was indeed already part of the system. So if there is still a problem receiving the auto backups we need to look at that specifically. > > Ok - just checking that the plans hadn't changed on that one. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 08:32 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 07:57 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>> I know that this link is only available to people on the sysadmin team, > >>> but for reference: > >>> https://pmt.postgresql.org/changeset/478 > >> > >>> What is this? A site that has not been discussed at all (AFAIK - given > >>> that it seems to happen a lot lately, maybe I'm having email delivery > >> It was a test site for the scripts that we had from Marc. > > > > Are we really talking about the same thing? What does the user > > "pgsqldocs" have to do with the archives - is it misnamed? Assuming > > those are the scripts you got from Marc - or are you talking about yet > > another thing here? > > I think we are. I thought you were talking about archives2. We weren't. > pgsqldocs is www.postgresqldocs.org Ok. At the time I had zero clue what that was, but there have now been emails on -www explaining what it is, so I now do know what itis. > >> Where is this policy written? And we have never applied that policy to > >> Linux hosts. Let's be consistent here please. > > > > I don't think it's written down, and you are very well aware of that. > > Yes I am. Please fill in pmt with the appropriate policy. Not a bad idea at all :-) Let me see if I can sell Stefan on it, since he's the guy who's actually set up most of the procedures around it. The actual procedures are fairly well documented, but not the policies. Stefan, any chance? ;-) > > But what you're basically saying is you want us to move all the stuff > > off the linux boxes then, to be consistent? > > Funny. I almost laughed at that one. My point was the VM policy has > never applied to Linux. We don't use VMs on linux (although I have never > been sure why). (that was kind of the intention, as I'm sure you realised) Yeah, the why *is* a very good question. Let's have a serious discussion about that at some point on IM or in mail (but not on this thread). We really should try to do something about the situation there. > > And I hope you're not seriously questioning the policy of discussing > > things before we do them? > > > > No, I am not. I should have posted that we were going to add pgsqldocs. > That is my bad. Good we're in agreement there. > > I didn't install it, so I don't know *what* to put in there. The person > > who installed it would know what's actually involved in it, and should > > add those files. > > I did it and if you see my other post you will see that I verified that > it was indeed already part of the system. So if there is still a problem > receiving the auto backups we need to look at that specifically. Agreed. Let me (or someone else on sysadmins) know if you need any help digging into it. If not, I'll just assume you're on top of it :-) //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > We weren't. > >> pgsqldocs is www.postgresqldocs.org > > Ok. At the time I had zero clue what that was, but there have now been > emails on -www explaining what it is, so I now do know what itis. Just so it is publicly archived, as I said in private email this is not a real user. At least not in the sense that a person can log in. I did not provide any additional people shell rights or any such thing. I created the user so the user would be responsible for the service is provides. As the machine (community2) only allows key based auth, there is no way to even get into that user directly. >>>> Where is this policy written? And we have never applied that policy to >>>> Linux hosts. Let's be consistent here please. >>> I don't think it's written down, and you are very well aware of that. >> Yes I am. Please fill in pmt with the appropriate policy. > > Not a bad idea at all :-) Let me see if I can sell Stefan on it, since > he's the guy who's actually set up most of the procedures around it. The > actual procedures are fairly well documented, but not the policies. > Stefan, any chance? ;-) Bam! Hah... Stefan you are on deck. > > (that was kind of the intention, as I'm sure you realised) > Yeah, the why *is* a very good question. Let's have a serious discussion > about that at some point on IM or in mail (but not on this thread). We > really should try to do something about the situation there. Agreed. > > >>> And I hope you're not seriously questioning the policy of discussing >>> things before we do them? >>> >> No, I am not. I should have posted that we were going to add pgsqldocs. >> That is my bad. > > Good we're in agreement there. In fact I actually kind of wonder if we should have done this through PMT, with tickets etc.. > > Agreed. Let me (or someone else on sysadmins) know if you need any help > digging into it. If not, I'll just assume you're on top of it :-) > I thought I saw Dave saying something about moderator blockage? Dave? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > pgsqldocs is www.postgresqldocs.org Last I heard that box was one of the community managed ones, which means any provisioning should have gone through the sysadmin team, not to mention PMT. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know and I'll start planning to migrate off there as we cannot effectively manage services on systems we only partially have control over. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Oracle-compatible database company
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > I thought I saw Dave saying something about moderator blockage? Dave? Yes, and it should now be fixed. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Oracle-compatible database company
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> We weren't. >> >>> pgsqldocs is www.postgresqldocs.org >> >> Ok. At the time I had zero clue what that was, but there have now been >> emails on -www explaining what it is, so I now do know what itis. > > Just so it is publicly archived, as I said in private email this is not > a real user. At least not in the sense that a person can log in. I did > not provide any additional people shell rights or any such thing. > > I created the user so the user would be responsible for the service is > provides. As the machine (community2) only allows key based auth, there > is no way to even get into that user directly. > >>>>> Where is this policy written? And we have never applied that policy >>>>> to Linux hosts. Let's be consistent here please. >>>> I don't think it's written down, and you are very well aware of that. >>> Yes I am. Please fill in pmt with the appropriate policy. >> >> Not a bad idea at all :-) Let me see if I can sell Stefan on it, since >> he's the guy who's actually set up most of the procedures around it. The >> actual procedures are fairly well documented, but not the policies. >> Stefan, any chance? ;-) > > Bam! Hah... Stefan you are on deck. "wonderful" I love to volunteer for stuff like this! Will see what I can come up with ... Stefan