This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[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 ]
Daniel Karrenberg
daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net
Tue Nov 10 10:36:48 CET 2015
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 > > >
- 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 ]