|
|
| Author |
Message |
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1614
Location: Somewhere you're not.
|
 Posted: Apr 21, 2006 2:18pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| MOVIEBOT wrote: | | i am netadmin myself and before allowing servers to link i tell them routing must have all shell access or your server will not be acepted. we just ask for shell access incase ur server goes down to restart it and other maintenance upgrades we might do. |
1> crontab is used to start applications automagiclly. Yes, even as fast as a few seconds. Not like the world will implode if an ircd fails to start in the first place. A properly configured RR will re-route users to running servers so nothing lost there.
2> maintanence upgrades can wait a few days if needed. If a 115k user net can wait up to 5 days for "maintenence upgrades" why cant you? The later is a serious question, not a flame.
I'm interested in hearing the "maintanence" that you have that the "big guys" don't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PingBad
Post Whore
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 3027
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: Apr 21, 2006 5:57pm Post subject: |
|
|
| katsklaw wrote: | | I'm interested in hearing the "maintanence" that you have that the "big guys" don't. |
Bug fixes, security patching, et cetera (depending on the IRCd package used, some may need more updating than others).
I sorta agree with having the network owners if not the routing team having access to the shells when the occaision arises. If a new link needs ot be added to a given server, or an O:Line needs modifying to a new situation, and the server admin is nowhere to be found (I know of a lot of server admins who tend to go AWOL at the worst possible times, but I choose not to name them), then at least someone who does have access to a given shell/dedi can at least get the job done without too much hassle. Although, if any changes are done to a shell that you aren't paying for (in the scenario described above), a memo or note to the server admin in charge of that given server should be sent to advise them of the changes and how to appeal them if they feel the changes are unjustified. That sort of system (at least) should be able to lessen the risk of a inter-server war/feud and prevent delinking due to differences of opinion...
Just my 4 cents worth (it's tax season again :/) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1614
Location: Somewhere you're not.
|
| Posted: Apr 21, 2006 6:49pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PingBad wrote: | | katsklaw wrote: | | I'm interested in hearing the "maintanence" that you have that the "big guys" don't. |
Bug fixes, security patching, et cetera (depending on the IRCd package used, some may need more updating than others).
I sorta agree with having the network owners if not the routing team having access to the shells when the occaision arises. If a new link needs ot be added to a given server, or an O:Line needs modifying to a new situation, and the server admin is nowhere to be found (I know of a lot of server admins who tend to go AWOL at the worst possible times, but I choose not to name them), then at least someone who does have access to a given shell/dedi can at least get the job done without too much hassle. Although, if any changes are done to a shell that you aren't paying for (in the scenario described above), a memo or note to the server admin in charge of that given server should be sent to advise them of the changes and how to appeal them if they feel the changes are unjustified. That sort of system (at least) should be able to lessen the risk of a inter-server war/feud and prevent delinking due to differences of opinion...
Just my 4 cents worth (it's tax season again :/) |
The "big guys" have bug fixes, security patching as well.
AWOL admins deserve nothing less than DNS re-routed to the IP pool and delinked. Since every server I've visited where the network had less than 100,000 users ... every single server had far less users connected than it can handle. Typically I find the average of 5-20 users on each server. Yes, there are some nets that have more .. but unless your shell is limited to 60 file descriptors .. then the servers are no where near full. One can log into nearly every IRC network with fewer than 10,000 users (which includes more than 99% of the networks) and find a vast amount of user capacity available. So truth be told there is no real *need* for all the servers to start with. On that note most nets I've been to can consolidate and actually fit their entire network onto 1 server.
Having too many people creates problems as well. Example is just a week ago 1 oper chose to qline another oper because of some irrelevent reason so oper #1 gets into the conf and removes oper #2's oline ... oper #2 chooses to oper some other way (uses the server admins oline) to regain oper status ... etc .. Granted the admin shouldn't be using *@* as their oper mask .. but that's a different story. In this scenario both opers were netadmins and ironiclly .. neither of them were the actual server admin or the shell owner. Sharing shell access IMO helps cause delinks and interserver fighting.
O:line modification can also can wait a few days if needed. If the oper is disruptive then akill/gline their oper hostmask. Using remote includes in ircd's that support it can fix this issue as well. Example add oper blocks to the remotey included file so opers are truely global and not bound to 1 server. Yes, I know not every ircd can support remote includes .. but the most popular one does  (no need to mention the name). Not to mention rsync.
It's the server admin's server .. that's why they are called "Server Admin".
The other topics I've already covered.
I've said my piece on this topic .. I think it's wrong .. my network will never require sharing shell access .. and I'll never link to a net that does ..
ciao |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeMiNe0
Lurker
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 197
Location: Westchester, New York
|
| Posted: Apr 22, 2006 9:39pm Post subject: |
|
|
I make my network as serveradmin friendly as i can.
I have a script that the admin can download, which will give me what ever information i need for that server (top read out, ect), and i also have a script that will set up the IRCd and config and also enable remote includes.
If worse comes to worse, you also have the option to squit |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrBurns
Lurker
Joined: 13 Oct 2004
Posts: 169
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Jun 24, 2006 11:46am Post subject: |
|
|
I would never ask for the access to the shell of any of my server admins nor would I ever give access to any of my shells to anybody else.
I don't see any reason why a network administrator needs the access to a shell unless it is to update the IRCd to a higher version, and even then the server admins can do that themselves. And I agree with DeMiNeO, if either side don't like it, squit and never come back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Register
Log in
