These were accepted as a reasonable account of the last meeting.
Discussions under way.
Still awaiting nag from Stephen.
See 'Topics for discussion'
Actions added or revived:
Deferred until July pending a fuller reply from Angus
Feedback has been generally positive
See 'Topics for discussion'
Blog articles suggested:
Blog articles completed:
Report from Computing Executive Group
Reports from Units
Tragically, it ws agreed that this was the responsibility of the Services Unit.
anonymity aside, it would be nice to know then names of the machines so that the guilty can identify themselves. Nonetheless, all such additions should labelled with a relevant RT ticket or at least the name of the person making the addition.
Servers on the develop release are asking for a reboot related to an OpenAFS update. This is only relevant to the client and otherwise can be safely delayed.
Initial testing of Gresley suggests that it runs as fast as the great man's A4 Pacifics.
Topics for discussion
We discussed the rise in the number of small (holding 4 - 6 disks) non-rack mounted NAS boxes being purchased by research groups. These are obviously meeting some sort of need that we are not meeting, probably that for very cheap scratch space but we need to find out for sure. Some purchasers are clearly expecting these to go into the self-managed server room but if they are not rack mounted this is not possible. As a result, they end up in people's offices which is clearly insecure, may adversely affect the environment in the office and imposes a greater strain on the networking in the office.
It's clear that all purchases of this sort should go through Mohammed and that a CO should discuss the reason for the purchase with the purchaser, point out potential drawbacks and issues and if possible find an alternative solution. In particular, the need to encrypt the disk if sensitive data is stored on it should be emphasised. This applies to all storage devices including USB attached backup disks and time capsules.
It was agreed that the Services Unit would write a computing.help page laying out the drawbacks of such a purchase and would also consult with recent purchasers of such equipment to establish exactly what need was not being met by the existing computing facilities.
After some discussion, it was agreed that the main VM risk came from guests which non-computing users were allowed to log into and guests which were managed by non-computing staff. There are roughly 20 machines which fall into these categories and it would seem an obvious step to move these to a separate server. There was some discussion over whether the convenience of being able to migrate guests on this server to another server when required justified the cost of running a second server which for most of the time would not be fulfilling any useful purpose. No conclusion was reached on this topic
It was agreed that the MPU would look into this issue and come up with some recommendations as to the way forward.
The next meeting will be on 22nd June 2016 at 10:00 in IF-4.31, chaired by Alison.
Please contact us with any comments or corrections.
Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all material is copyright The University of Edinburgh