| 1 |
On 06/09/18 16:45, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:22 AM Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> One idea I had infra-wise was to expand the idea of our devspace. |
| 4 |
>> Increase the footprint of our virtualizatoin infra and (on request) give |
| 5 |
>> devs a VM for dev work. Possibly even do some arm64 or ppc64 work there |
| 6 |
>> too. Beyond that, running a binhost may be an idea, get people |
| 7 |
>> bootstrapped faster. |
| 8 |
> If anything I think it would make more sense to try to decentralize |
| 9 |
> things more, to let individual contributors run more Gentoo services |
| 10 |
> off of their own stuff. For example, it would be useful if a service |
| 11 |
> hosted on a dev machine could allow LDAP users to authenticate in a |
| 12 |
> secure manner, and so on. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The idea would be to make us less dependent on centrally-owned |
| 15 |
> infrastructure, so that it is less of a disaster if we lose access to |
| 16 |
> servers for whatever reason. It would also reduce our operating |
| 17 |
> costs. Services hosted by devs could still be FOSS with published |
| 18 |
> configurations/sources/etc so that they're easily replicated. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> The biggest problem is that some of our key infra isn't easily |
| 21 |
> distributed, like bugzilla. LDAP is of course by its nature a |
| 22 |
> centralized service (even with something more federated you need some |
| 23 |
> kind of standard of trust unless we do the web-of-trust thing - I |
| 24 |
> think that needs to be down the road). Until somebody creates a |
| 25 |
> git-like distributed bugzilla solution we'll probably need some kind |
| 26 |
> of central repository, especially if we have private bugs such that we |
| 27 |
> can't just publish the database and let anybody replicate it. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> -- |
| 30 |
> Rich |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
That's not how I understand LDAP .. I believe there is not only build-in |
| 33 |
replication but redundancy too, so that, for instance, with logon |
| 34 |
authorisation, you're not dependent on one single host .. that would be |
| 35 |
a b1tch if it went down and thousands of users got locked out .. surely?! |
| 36 |
And yes, as far as I know, there is a security mechanism built-in so any |
| 37 |
Tom, Dick or Harry can't get the data without the relevant keys ... |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
MJE |
Archives