[atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Pavel Odintsov
pavel.odintsov at gmail.com
Tue Nov 10 10:49:01 CET 2015
Hello! Awesome! Could you share where we could bought it? I will share this information with local community. On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net> wrote: > At this time are 485 connected probes and two connected anchors in > Russia. As far as I know Soekris boxes can be bought in Russia. > > Daniel > > On 10.11.15 10:07 , Pavel Odintsov wrote: >> Hello, Community! >> >> I like idea about VM based Anchor's. >> >> For example in Russia we have so much companies who really want to >> host RIPE Anchor hosting but it's really hard due to so much >> bureaucracy for computer hardware import. It's really sophisticated >> and long task. >> >> VM based Anchors could help in this case. But they should be >> designated as "second-rate monitoring". So somebody who interested in >> monitoring over non-so-reliable-vm's could use they. Actually, this >> VM's should "mine" less points than full-size-Anchor. >> >> We could select some unified way to run VM's. I prefer VmWare because it's: >> 1) Free >> 2) Simple to deploy >> 3) Mature >> 4) Very simple VM deploy >> >> Xen, KVM are pretty too but they are based on non standard linux >> distributions and it could be a configuration issue. OpenVZ/Docker and >> LXC should be avoided because (actually I have so much experience with >> they and I'm not a technology hater) they are not offer dedicated >> service and not isolated perfectly from each other processes. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:33:01AM +0100, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >>>> >From my personal, informal assessment I advise against supporting VMs. I >>>> recommend a thorough assessment of the data quality, the costs and the >>>> effects on RIPE Atlas as a whole before diving into soloutioneering. >>> >>> From experience running a recursive DNS on a VM platform, I'd also speak >>> against supporting VMs. Unpredictable load elsewhere on the same host >>> can (and does) lead to UDP/ICMP packet loss, which the "Atlas VM" won't >>> be able to differenciate from "something on the path is broken/lossy". >>> >>> Gert Doering >>> -- NetMaster >>> -- >>> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? >>> >>> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard >>> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann >>> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) >>> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >> >> >> -- Sincerely yours, Pavel Odintsov
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] VM probes (was Re: Feature request for IP record route feature in RIPE Atlas)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]