On 2012-12-16 at 21:40:16 [+0100], Urias McCullough <umccullough@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: [ ... ] > > I vote we setup a new server and start migrating to it. Do we think it > would be best to just shutdown for a few hours and do a full > migration? Or should we setup the new server and migrate VMs to it one > at a time? I think it depends on whether or not we decide to use the same IPs for the server or use new ones. If we aim for reusing the IPs, we'd have to prepare the new server for taking over and then let Hetzner physically replace the servers, so the actual migration would be a single action. Alternatively, we could use new IPs and then just set up everything on the new server (host OS plus VMs) until it works. The final step would then be to migrate the VMs individually (shutdown on baron, change DNS entry, sync VM disk to new server, start VM on new server). > >> To note, it we ever exceed 10TB in a month, we would need to pay €7 > >> EUR (incl. VAT) per additional TB used, to restore 100Mbit/s speed. > > > > True - no matter if we stay with our current server or switch to a new > > one. > > Last I checked on hetzner's site, we're nowhere near this "danger > zone" yet... unless I looked at the stats wrong. No, throughout the whole of 2012, we used no more than 6 TB of traffic, so 10 TB/month should be good enough for quite some time. > I'm a bit concerned about the additional need for IPv4 addresses - as > that's going to start incurring additional costs moving forward. Yep, using additional IPv4 addresses would be pretty expensive, as we'd have to buy the "flexi-pack" (for 15 EUR/momth) plus a /29 or /28 IPv4 subnet (for 8 or 16 EUR/month). To avoid those 23 EUR/month, I'd like to use IPv6 for direct access to the new VMs and use a reverse-proxy on baron for http traffic to/from the VMs. Unless I'm mistaken, that should be good enough for things like buildbots. cheers, Oliver