[Adminsysters] [mur.at #9912] server disconnected

[ooooo]

FIY # we did a full backup again to check the restricted rate limit we put,  we expect the next backups to be incremental and much swifter.

And we soon try to formulate a eeply.
Thanks already for the support.

XmOn Jan 19, 2022 9:40 PM, Djamil Vardag via RT <amt at mur.at> wrote:
>
> Hey you all 
> > Hey ralph 
> > Hey mur.at 
> > 
> > We are studying to put some bandwidth limit and monitor so we can 
> > troubleshoot better the machine. But where to put this limit? in our 
> > side or in your gateway? And how much ? Like during the night we can use 
> > the entire bandwidth for the server upload and download.. 
> > and during the day (8:00-22:00) Adele can use... eg. 30MB/s for upload 
> You can use 20 Mbit up/down, that would be ok for now. We have to discuss that 
> internally. 
> > and 10MB/s for download ? Or what do you suggest ? We need again access 
> > again - port 22 incoming is not enough to troubleshoot to check our borg 
> > backup script - for that we need for sure 22 outgoing port. 
> Ok, for now we have tried to implement a iptables rate limit. You should have 
> full TCP access to adele again, UDP is still blocked. 
> It would be ok for us if you use the available bandwidth as long as our 
> services are still working fluidly, but that isn't that easy to implement. 
> > It can also be our peertube instance. We disabled the webtorrent. We 
> > understand that peertube needs specific requirements - 
> > https://docs.joinpeertube.org/install-any-os?id=installation 
> > No adsl - you have a 100M/Bit symmetric fiber. Is that dsl? Do you 
> This is a 100/100 MBit fiber, no DSL, the bottleneck is the fiber and one 
> 100MBit switch wich will get overwhelmed if there are to many packets. 
> > suggest that we can run our peertube instance on your infrastructure? 
> > Our users are very limited and moderated. Also we don't have a lot of 
> > material on it. It is rather an experimental instance. 
> Ok, i guess this would't be a problem for our connection. Webtorrent suggests 
> that it uses less bandwidth on our end. 
> > We do understand your decision but for the moment we our server back 
> > running. 
> Sure, we can understand that and sorry that we had to be so drastic, but we 
> didn't have a choice as all of mur.at wasn't working well and we are loosing 
> our face in front of our members and financers. 
> > We want to install a monitoring software like netdata - promotheus. 
> Seems like a good idea 
> > 
> > Or do you have any suggestions to tackle the bandwidth problem? We have 
> > currently a funded project running until May so an online presence + 
> > visibility is importantand urgent- even while we are learning. 
> The problem is that we don't have any QOS on our switches enabled yet, to 
> tackle rate limitting there. We need to learn and implement that first. 
> We tried establishing a 10Mbit link to your machine, but it didn't like that. 
> The reasoning being that you could still use the machine, and we would have a 
> pseudo rate limit. 
> You mentioned a daily backup, maybe this is the culprit. As i said your machine 
> made traffic of 8TB in one week, that is just too much. 
> There are some websites and services of us that are also funded and we could 
> get a problem with renewing these services, which could cost us thousends in 
> the future. 
>
> > Can you also add this email systercloud at grrlz.net to the mur.at 
> > mailinglist 
> we would suggest to put systercloud at grrlz.net as a forwarding address of donna 
> (donna at mur.at), who already is on all the lists. 
> > xm 
>