[FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg/MPlayer/rtmpdump possibly searching for a new server and hosting
michael at niedermayer.cc
Sun Jul 19 17:43:41 CEST 2015
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.
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel