- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Route Reflectors swap out.

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:50:19AM -0500, Doug McIntyre wrote: > I should schedule up a time when I swap out the RR's with the new hardware. > I have them ready, just need to get them there at online. And this process is done. I have both new sets of hardware installed and happy. I have roughly the same # of routes coming into each being distributed out. The routing looks good from the RR's as well as my site (ipHouse). I also left my last build of a route reflector hardware (the one with the SAS6/i controller, so no battery, no battery deep cycle testing) as a cold spare here. Jeff has offered up another R320 when they are done as another cold spare I believe, so we'll have two loaded up cold spares ready to go. If I bring in some duplex power cables, I could make them warm spares, ready to kick over with DRAC when needed, I have some in my pile, since I don't use them. (obviously they'd still be A + B power, not single powered). Should be all good. Speak up if not. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

April 3, 2015

Re: Route Reflectors swap out.

by Matthew Beckwell

I think the general consensus during the last discussion was "as long as we know ahead of time". Doug's notification certainly meets that criteria for me, and the MOP sounds solid. (Although I will still probably shut down my sessions the night before). ~Matthew On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Justin Krejci <JKrejci(a)usinternet.com> wrote: > Speaking for myself, any time is just fine as long as it is only one > server at a time, as you indicated. > > > ________________________________________ > From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Doug > McIntyre [merlyn(a)IPHOUSE.NET] > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:50 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Route Reflectors swap out. > > I should schedule up a time when I swap out the RR's with the new hardware. > I have them ready, just need to get them there at online. > > Of course I'd do one at a time, probably take down #2 first, and then > once that is up, and give it 15 mins to settle, go and down #1. > > Would the afternoon of Friday, 4/3/2015 work for people? > Should be a 30-45 minute procedure, it should be straight forward. > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades >

March 31, 2015

Re: Route Reflectors swap out.

by Justin Krejci

Speaking for myself, any time is just fine as long as it is only one server at a time, as you indicated. ________________________________________ From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Doug McIntyre [merlyn(a)IPHOUSE.NET] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 11:50 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Route Reflectors swap out. I should schedule up a time when I swap out the RR's with the new hardware. I have them ready, just need to get them there at online. Of course I'd do one at a time, probably take down #2 first, and then once that is up, and give it 15 mins to settle, go and down #1. Would the afternoon of Friday, 4/3/2015 work for people? Should be a 30-45 minute procedure, it should be straight forward. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

March 31, 2015

Route Reflectors swap out.

by Doug McIntyre

I should schedule up a time when I swap out the RR's with the new hardware. I have them ready, just need to get them there at online. Of course I'd do one at a time, probably take down #2 first, and then once that is up, and give it 15 mins to settle, go and down #1. Would the afternoon of Friday, 4/3/2015 work for people? Should be a 30-45 minute procedure, it should be straight forward. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

March 31, 2015

OT: exfo BV10-100-1000?

by Ryan Goldberg

Hi all, sorry for the OT but I can't think of a better group to ask this of. I rented an FTB-200 to dig in to some hairy stuff and they didn't ship the loopback thing (BV10-100-1000). I was wondering if anyone has one or has access to one that I could borrow in short order. Thanks in advance- Ryan 218-390-5485

March 28, 2015

Re: MICE UG 16

by Mike Horwath

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 06:46:21AM -0500, Shaun Carlson wrote: > To clarify, 1300 Nicollett Mall is the correct address yeah, ah well. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

March 28, 2015

Re: FW: New gen route servers

by Mike Horwath

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:04:36AM -0500, Anton Kapela wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > > > I'm not sure SSD would bring much, so far it has been controller failures, > > and not disk failures. Everything has all been enterprise grade drives in > > every iteration. > > indeed - not much, but quite useful (if one doesn't like things > rolling slow) for when one rocks out w/ their / or /usr or whatnot on > a sync-mounted fs ;) Still wrong problem. Just sayin'. ZFS and UFS are vastly different with metadata updates anyway so it really isn't part of the problem you are trying to solve. BTW: Still trolling. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

March 28, 2015

Re: FW: New gen route servers

by Mike Horwath

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 07:13:12AM -0500, Anton Kapela wrote: > (Chiming in because storage and OS nerding) > > Given the use case (safety > perf), perhaps the route server storage > would be best matched by something like a sync-mounted file system, > raid1 with no cache enabled, or read cache only with a forced > write-through? Overkill and wrong solution for the wrong, imaginary, problem. > A pair of SLC-type SSD's with ext3/4, or XFS mounted 'sync' atop a > write-through raid1 should still be entirely awesome and performant > for the job of booting an OS and loading route-server binaries, and > perhaps even soaking up a few syslog outputs...while being as 'safe' > as the hardware allows. This isn't Linux either. Cause. You don't need linux to be your every hammer for every nail. Cause that's my storage and OS nerding coming out. Wanna really go to town? GlusterFS with 3 nodes with replica=3 and one node not on same network. But that won't help the system from crashing because of potential firmware bugs going on as Doug has mentioned. That's the problem, not an issue of corrupted storage. In fact, as far as I know, there has been zero corruption of data during these periods of instability showing that FreeBSD rocks even when using ZFS and I bet would be just as stable with UFS. > If that sounds tempting, tell me where to fedex the ssd media & > caddy adapters :) SSDs always good though. BTW: I'm a troll. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

March 28, 2015

Re: MICE Governance Documents

by Jason Hanke

> > > Also, are we afraid of using the term "switch" instead of the generic term > "equipment?" Are there situations where there is member connectivity that > does not involve the use of a switch specifically? Are just preparing in > case ATM makes a move to over? 53 bytes FTW! > I could see someone potentially provide layer 1 type equipment (xWDM) to provide an extension. I don't really understand the use case of doing something remote with no attached members other than someone builds a remote and then hopes that someone connects in the future. -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

March 27, 2015

Re: MICE Governance Documents

by Richard Laager

Note that this about who can be a member, not who is a member. There's the separate step of electing or appointing. On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 20:40 +0000, Justin Krejci wrote: > I would suggest an amendment to your 1A and 1B proposals > section (ii) changed from > an operator of equipment providing approved indirect connections. > to > an operator of equipment providing approved indirect connections with > at least one active member connection I considered this. I originally went so far as to write "two or more". But in the end, I took it out as I don't think this matters. The Board shouldn't approve a switch that's not going to have any members. If they do and it turns out nobody connects, they can just de-approve it after a while. Also, they can hold up approving the switch operator's membership (separate from "approving the switch") until such time as there are connections behind the switch. If we were to adopt your proposal, I'd like to see it amended by striking the word "member". We should not assume that all connected networks are necessarily members. > Depending on how your legalese translates, this could cover a fiber > provider not otherwise associated with the exchange, eg a provider who > leases wave service or dark fiber to connect the 511 fabric to a > remote colo switch. With proposal 1A you could have both the switch > operator and the fiber owner as members. With proposal 1B you could > have the switch operator (unless it's an official MICE switch), the > fiber owner, and the colo facility all of which could be separate > companies. I considered this possibility. But, even if the fiber owner tries to claim they're eligible for membership, the Board/members need not appoint/elect them. > Also, are we afraid of using the term "switch" instead of the generic > term "equipment?" Are there situations where there is member > connectivity that does not involve the use of a switch specifically? > Are just preparing in case ATM makes a move to over? 53 bytes FTW! I believe CNS still connects remote participants. (Halstad Telphone Company is the example now. Wikstrom Telephone Company was connected this way in the past.) This is done by extending the MICE VLAN through the CNS network out to the remote participants. It is not the case (at least it wasn't for us) that the remote participants have purchased a layer 2 circuit to 511 that they can cross-connect to arbitrary destinations. So it's not that they have a presence in 511 and are connected to a single, identifiable "remote switch". Granted, CNS is directly connected, and also runs an identifiable remote switch, so this is moot for them. And it may not be likely to occur with another network. But, for another example that might be more likely.... Imagine a carrier neutral data center operator carries the MICE VLAN through their switching fabric, whether that's in one building or more than one around the metro area. They might very well not run an IP network that connects to MICE. -- Richard

March 27, 2015

Re: MICE Governance Documents

by Justin Krejci

Richard, I would suggest an amendment to your 1A and 1B proposals section (ii) changed from an operator of equipment providing approved indirect connections. to an operator of equipment providing approved indirect connections with at least one active member connection Depending on how your legalese translates, this could cover a fiber provider not otherwise associated with the exchange, eg a provider who leases wave service or dark fiber to connect the 511 fabric to a remote colo switch. With proposal 1A you could have both the switch operator and the fiber owner as members. With proposal 1B you could have the switch operator (unless it's an official MICE switch), the fiber owner, and the colo facility all of which could be separate companies. Also, are we afraid of using the term "switch" instead of the generic term "equipment?" Are there situations where there is member connectivity that does not involve the use of a switch specifically? Are just preparing in case ATM makes a move to over? 53 bytes FTW! ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Richard Laager [rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 3:13 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Governance Documents I would still like to see operators of remote switches (e.g. Mankato Networks) be allowed to be members. PROPOSAL 1A: In order to qualify for membership, a member shall be: (i) an operator of an Internet Protocol network which has one or more direct, or approved indirect, connections to Midwest Internet Cooperative Exchange LLC’s (the “Company”) switches; or (ii) an operator of equipment providing approved indirect connections. PROPOSAL 1B: [ If we feel it is important to allow for Cologix (and similar companies in the future) to be members, then... ] In order to qualify for membership, a member shall be: (i) an operator of an Internet Protocol network which has one or more direct, or approved indirect, connections to Midwest Internet Cooperative Exchange LLC’s (the “Company”) switches; (ii) an operator of equipment providing approved indirect connections; or (iii) an operator of a colocation data center in which the Company's switches are located. I'd like to see this sentence change: CURRENT: A member may be elected or appointed to membership by the Board. PROPOSAL 2A: A member may be elected or appointed to membership. PROPOSAL 2B: A member may be elected to membership by the members or appointed to membership by the Board. -- Richard ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

March 27, 2015

Re: MICE Governance Documents

by Richard Laager

I would still like to see operators of remote switches (e.g. Mankato Networks) be allowed to be members. PROPOSAL 1A: In order to qualify for membership, a member shall be: (i) an operator of an Internet Protocol network which has one or more direct, or approved indirect, connections to Midwest Internet Cooperative Exchange LLC’s (the “Company”) switches; or (ii) an operator of equipment providing approved indirect connections. PROPOSAL 1B: [ If we feel it is important to allow for Cologix (and similar companies in the future) to be members, then... ] In order to qualify for membership, a member shall be: (i) an operator of an Internet Protocol network which has one or more direct, or approved indirect, connections to Midwest Internet Cooperative Exchange LLC’s (the “Company”) switches; (ii) an operator of equipment providing approved indirect connections; or (iii) an operator of a colocation data center in which the Company's switches are located. I'd like to see this sentence change: CURRENT: A member may be elected or appointed to membership by the Board. PROPOSAL 2A: A member may be elected or appointed to membership. PROPOSAL 2B: A member may be elected to membership by the members or appointed to membership by the Board. -- Richard

March 27, 2015

MICE Governance Documents

by Shaun Carlson

All, I would invite you to review the attached documents for any concerns or potential changes. Please note one suggested change annotated in red (if you have tracking turned on). If you have any concerns or changes, please send them to the list for comment and review in the near future. Mike, Reid and I will be meeting on the 8th to go over a few things and set the dates for a couple of special meetings to provide an opportunity for comment and review in an immediate forum as well. We intend, at this time, to hold those special meetings via webex and to have the vote following those meetings. Thank you for your time in working through this process! s *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

March 27, 2015

Re: FW: New gen route servers

by Anton Kapela

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > I'm not sure SSD would bring much, so far it has been controller failures, > and not disk failures. Everything has all been enterprise grade drives in > every iteration. indeed - not much, but quite useful (if one doesn't like things rolling slow) for when one rocks out w/ their / or /usr or whatnot on a sync-mounted fs ;) -Tk

March 27, 2015

Re: FW: New gen route servers

by Brady Kittel

Sounds good, we could probably pickup the new dell servers under our hardware support for server parts if they don't have coverage currently. We get 24x7x4 parts sourcing from IBM logistics (yes they carry dell parts). I'd just need the service tags and model info off of them. On Mar 27, 2015 10:25 AM, "Doug McIntyre" <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 07:13:12AM -0500, Anton Kapela wrote: > > Given the use case (safety > perf), perhaps the route server storage > would be best matched by something like a sync-mounted file system, raid1 > with no cache enabled, or read cache only with a forced write-through? > > Everything has all been RAID1, the old setup had the write-back cache, > all the new setups don't have battery backed up cache, so they are all > write-through setups. > > I'm not sure SSD would bring much, so far it has been controller failures, > and not disk failures. Everything has all been enterprise grade drives in > every iteration. > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades >

March 27, 2015

Re: FW: New gen route servers

by Doug McIntyre

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 07:13:12AM -0500, Anton Kapela wrote: > Given the use case (safety > perf), perhaps the route server storage would be best matched by something like a sync-mounted file system, raid1 with no cache enabled, or read cache only with a forced write-through? Everything has all been RAID1, the old setup had the write-back cache, all the new setups don't have battery backed up cache, so they are all write-through setups. I'm not sure SSD would bring much, so far it has been controller failures, and not disk failures. Everything has all been enterprise grade drives in every iteration. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

March 27, 2015

Re: FW: New gen route servers

by Anton Kapela

(Chiming in because storage and OS nerding) Given the use case (safety > perf), perhaps the route server storage would be best matched by something like a sync-mounted file system, raid1 with no cache enabled, or read cache only with a forced write-through? A pair of SLC-type SSD's with ext3/4, or XFS mounted 'sync' atop a write-through raid1 should still be entirely awesome and performant for the job of booting an OS and loading route-server binaries, and perhaps even soaking up a few syslog outputs...while being as 'safe' as the hardware allows. If that sounds tempting, tell me where to fedex the ssd media & caddy adapters :) -Tk > On Mar 27, 2015, at 1:26 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)IPHOUSE.NET> wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 06:24:03PM -0500, Brady Kittel wrote: >> As an alternate option I have several HP dl380 g7's that are maybe a year >> old and still under warranty I could provide. They have licensed ILO on >> them as well and I could provide some hot spare drives for them. > > I think with the current PE R320 and PE R805, that we are probably set, but > thank you for your offer. The R320 is a pretty new box, hmm, pulling the > serial # and going to Dell, it looks like it is only 16 months old. Jeff > mentioned they had some more coming out of cycle, and that people were looking > to get a hot spare at the UG meeting? > > I think the specific problem I was seeing with the old hardware was > due to a very specific configuration. With the PERC6/i battery backed > up RAID controller, and some combination due to the age of the battery, > and that specific design, which periodically (every 2-3 months or so) does > a deep drain and charge cycle on the battery to make sure it can hold its' > intended charge for the writeback log, during this cycle it switches the > writeback log off and then on again, and sometimes the OS glitches on this > sudden change in disk latency. My guess is the batteries were below a certain > threshold point that exacerbated the writelog switchover, since we have been > running on the same hardware for quite some time without issues, but not > below the threshold which would alert the BCM on the RAID battery being bad. > > Both of these new systems do not have a battery backed up RAID system, which > really isn't needed in this use case anyway, and are newer hardware, which I > think would serve us well. > > I have both inhouse, with the OS installed, I just have to copy the configs back over, > which I can get done pretty quickly, as it isn't extensive, and haul them down > to 511. I'll have to schedule up some sort of switchout time, how much lead time > would a graceful changeout of the hardware be required? > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

March 27, 2015

Re: FW: New gen route servers

by Doug McIntyre

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 06:24:03PM -0500, Brady Kittel wrote: > As an alternate option I have several HP dl380 g7's that are maybe a year > old and still under warranty I could provide. They have licensed ILO on > them as well and I could provide some hot spare drives for them. I think with the current PE R320 and PE R805, that we are probably set, but thank you for your offer. The R320 is a pretty new box, hmm, pulling the serial # and going to Dell, it looks like it is only 16 months old. Jeff mentioned they had some more coming out of cycle, and that people were looking to get a hot spare at the UG meeting? I think the specific problem I was seeing with the old hardware was due to a very specific configuration. With the PERC6/i battery backed up RAID controller, and some combination due to the age of the battery, and that specific design, which periodically (every 2-3 months or so) does a deep drain and charge cycle on the battery to make sure it can hold its' intended charge for the writeback log, during this cycle it switches the writeback log off and then on again, and sometimes the OS glitches on this sudden change in disk latency. My guess is the batteries were below a certain threshold point that exacerbated the writelog switchover, since we have been running on the same hardware for quite some time without issues, but not below the threshold which would alert the BCM on the RAID battery being bad. Both of these new systems do not have a battery backed up RAID system, which really isn't needed in this use case anyway, and are newer hardware, which I think would serve us well. I have both inhouse, with the OS installed, I just have to copy the configs back over, which I can get done pretty quickly, as it isn't extensive, and haul them down to 511. I'll have to schedule up some sort of switchout time, how much lead time would a graceful changeout of the hardware be required? -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

March 27, 2015

Re: FW: New gen route servers

by Brady Kittel

Correction just checked the tags, they're actually about 2 and a half years old. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Brady Kittel <bkittel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > As an alternate option I have several HP dl380 g7's that are maybe a year > old and still under warranty I could provide. They have licensed ILO on > them as well and I could provide some hot spare drives for them. They're > also massively over speced for this use (quad core processors, 8-12GB of > memory, 4 x 15k drives. We've had much better luck with the HP hardware > with regard to firmware stability in that generation range than the dell > hardware we run for what it's worth. Given we only run maybe a thousand > servers but the sample size seems large enough to bare that out. > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:45:03AM -0500, Jeff Anderson wrote: >> > This machine is ready to go if MICE would like it. I can drop it by >> this afternoon. >> > Here are the specs: >> > Dell R320 >> > Single socket 4 core 1.8ghz Xeon. >> > PERC H310 Mini with RAID 10 >> > Qty 4 300 gig 10k SAS disks >> > 8Gig RAM >> >> >> Sure! I think that would be an excellent upgrade to newer gear than >> what we have now. Of course, it is total overkill for what it needs, >> but then again just about anything enterprise hardware is. >> >> When the R805 is ready, I could swing out and do up this one at 511, >> probably >> easier than hauling it back and forth, even I'm only 8 blocks away. >> >> >> -- >> Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> >> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ >> Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades >> > >

March 26, 2015

Re: FW: New gen route servers

by Brady Kittel

As an alternate option I have several HP dl380 g7's that are maybe a year old and still under warranty I could provide. They have licensed ILO on them as well and I could provide some hot spare drives for them. They're also massively over speced for this use (quad core processors, 8-12GB of memory, 4 x 15k drives. We've had much better luck with the HP hardware with regard to firmware stability in that generation range than the dell hardware we run for what it's worth. Given we only run maybe a thousand servers but the sample size seems large enough to bare that out. On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:45:03AM -0500, Jeff Anderson wrote: > > This machine is ready to go if MICE would like it. I can drop it by this > afternoon. > > Here are the specs: > > Dell R320 > > Single socket 4 core 1.8ghz Xeon. > > PERC H310 Mini with RAID 10 > > Qty 4 300 gig 10k SAS disks > > 8Gig RAM > > > Sure! I think that would be an excellent upgrade to newer gear than > what we have now. Of course, it is total overkill for what it needs, > but then again just about anything enterprise hardware is. > > When the R805 is ready, I could swing out and do up this one at 511, > probably > easier than hauling it back and forth, even I'm only 8 blocks away. > > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades >

March 26, 2015

Re: FW: New gen route servers

by Doug McIntyre

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:45:03AM -0500, Jeff Anderson wrote: > This machine is ready to go if MICE would like it. I can drop it by this afternoon. > Here are the specs: > Dell R320 > Single socket 4 core 1.8ghz Xeon. > PERC H310 Mini with RAID 10 > Qty 4 300 gig 10k SAS disks > 8Gig RAM Sure! I think that would be an excellent upgrade to newer gear than what we have now. Of course, it is total overkill for what it needs, but then again just about anything enterprise hardware is. When the R805 is ready, I could swing out and do up this one at 511, probably easier than hauling it back and forth, even I'm only 8 blocks away. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

March 26, 2015

Re: FW: New gen route servers

by Mike Horwath

R320 is current. I'd jump on this if I were doing the work. -- Mike, via phone

March 26, 2015

Re: FW: New gen route servers

by Jeff Anderson

This machine is ready to go if MICE would like it. I can drop it by this afternoon. Here are the specs: Dell R320 Single socket 4 core 1.8ghz Xeon. PERC H310 Mini with RAID 10 Qty 4 300 gig 10k SAS disks 8Gig RAM All firmware has been flashed up to appropriate patch levels. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Mike Hemphill Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 10:30 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] FW: New gen route servers All, Please see Jeff's offer below as well. Mike Mike Hemphill General Manager | Cologix, Inc. 511 11th Ave S, Suite 450 | Minneapolis, MN 55415 P: 1+612.333.1922 | M: 1+612.812.5242 mike.hemphill(a)cologix.com -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Anderson [mailto:jeffa@implex.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:08 PM To: mhemphill@mngateway com; Dave Farmer; Jay Hanke Subject: New gen route servers Guys, I have a dell R320 box that we would like to donate as a new route server platform. Its got a single core 1.8ghz. 8gig ram. Raid 10 disks. Ill provide whatever ram or disk you require. I should have a couple more of these available end of month. We're virtualizing a client into our cloud so we should have some extra hardware coming our way shortly. .sparky

March 26, 2015

FW: New gen route servers

by Mike Hemphill

All, Please see Jeff's offer below as well. Mike Mike Hemphill General Manager | Cologix, Inc. 511 11th Ave S, Suite 450 | Minneapolis, MN 55415 P: 1+612.333.1922 | M: 1+612.812.5242 mike.hemphill(a)cologix.com -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Anderson [mailto:jeffa@implex.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 11:08 PM To: mhemphill@mngateway com; Dave Farmer; Jay Hanke Subject: New gen route servers Guys, I have a dell R320 box that we would like to donate as a new route server platform. Its got a single core 1.8ghz. 8gig ram. Raid 10 disks. Ill provide whatever ram or disk you require. I should have a couple more of these available end of month. We're virtualizing a client into our cloud so we should have some extra hardware coming our way shortly. .sparky

March 26, 2015

Re: Mice route server stability

by Doug McIntyre

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 03:16:09PM +0000, Derek Poehls wrote: > In regards to route server hardware. We have 6 older Dell 1950???s we???ve recently pulled out if they could be of use? Nevin@Arcustech has graciously donated a Dell PE R805 to MICE for use as a RR. We specificily choose it with a SAS6/i controller, which is a non battery backed RAID controller, so the deep battery drain/charge cycle that I see glitch out the disks sometimes wouldn't be an issue. After micemn-02 ate it last week, I had actually taken one of ipHouse surplus PE 1950 with a SAS6/i controller down to MICE to replace micemn-02, so it has been up since then. I think that with the refresh of micemn-01 with the newer Dell and with specificly choosing that controller, I think MICE RR's will be in a good spot. I'm currently awaiting a batch of DRAC cards that I bought for it to arrive and I'll take the R805 down to 511 to replace micemn-01. I'm thinking with the different RAID HBAs that the stability will be improved and this won't be an issue. The actual resources required by the RR's are nothing, but it is the redundancy and stability that we need. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

March 26, 2015