Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.

Debian-Administration.Org is Going Read-Only at the End of the Month

posted by cmn32480 on Saturday September 16 2017, @03:36AM   Printer-friendly
from the static-is-a-precursor-to-shutdown dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

After 13 years the Debian-Administration website will go read-only at the end of the month. Then later in the year it will transform it into a solely static-site so that the articles, weblogs, and associated comments are not lost - and they can be served via single server or two. Mostly this is happening due to lack of new content being added and folks posting more elsewhere.

https://debian-administration.org/article/730/This_site_is_going_to_go_read-only

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Debian-Administration.Org is Going Read-Only at the End of the Month | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 41 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @04:31AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @04:31AM (#568841)

    The announcement says

    the maintenance of the (10+) servers which power the site is becoming increasingly draining

    10+ servers?! What the fuck?! Why the hell does a simple site like that need that many servers?! I can understand two or three for some redundancy, but 10+?! A couple of $5/month VPS instances would probably be more than sufficient for a site as basic as that one.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @05:35AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @05:35AM (#568852)
    from a comment to the article:
    • 4 x web-servers (apache2)
    • 1 x load-balancer to route traffic to any of those that are up (haproxy)
    • 1 x database for content-storing
    • 1 x redis for login-sessions + caching
    • 1 x API-server for serving content for other uses.
    • 1 x mail-delivery host for sending out comment-notications, etc.
    • 1 x webserver for the planet

    Doesn't need half that many machines of course, but at the same time why not?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @01:09PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 16 2017, @01:09PM (#568944)

      Why not? Because at most all they really need is:

      2 x web-servers (apache2); webserver for the planet
      1 x database for content-storing; redis for login-sessions + caching; API-server for serving content for other uses; mail-delivery host for sending out comment-notications, etc.
      1 x load-balancer to route traffic to any of those that are up (haproxy)

      Given how little traffic they probably get, and how non-critical this site is, they could probably get away with:

      1 x web-server (apache2); webserver for the planet; database for content-storing; redis for login-sessions + caching; API-server for serving content for other uses; mail-delivery host for sending out comment-notications, etc.

  • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Saturday September 16 2017, @12:09PM

    by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 16 2017, @12:09PM (#568924)

    Perhaps more importantly, how the hell does a site that isn't being actively used much need 10+ servers?

    Either no one is using it so it doesn't matter much if it goes away, _or_ it needs a lot of servers. Not both.