Opened 3 months ago

Closed 3 months ago

Last modified 6 weeks ago

#31540 closed task (fixed)

Do we want to run a NextCloud instance?

Reported by: ln5 Owned by: tpa
Priority: Medium Milestone:
Component: Internal Services/Tor Sysadmin Team Version:
Severity: Normal Keywords:
Cc: gk Actual Points:
Parent ID: Points:
Reviewer: Sponsor:

Description

Today's meeting on NextCloud as a replacement for Storm and SVN decided we should go ahead using NextCloud.

Should Tor run an instance or should we rather have someone do it for us? Riseup has offered to run it for us, in a separate instance for Tor only if we want that. They've also offered to help us running one on our own infrastructure if that's what we want.

What do we want?

Child Tickets

Change History (6)

comment:1 Changed 3 months ago by anarcat

i think it would be nice to have a separate instance to make future maintenance and/or migration easier. because right now i'm afraid we'll get tangled up in their instance and it will be very hard to migrate, as everyone will need to manually copy their contents outside of Riseup's instance.

i am not sure we're ready to host the service ourselves. if riseup can do it for now, that would be great while we tackle other migrations like gitlab, email and the storm-nextcloud migration itself...

one downside is we might need more assistance from the riseup folks during that migration, but i think the tradeoff should work out especially given how helpful they've been so far!

comment:2 in reply to:  1 Changed 3 months ago by gk

Replying to anarcat:

i think it would be nice to have a separate instance to make future maintenance and/or migration easier. because right now i'm afraid we'll get tangled up in their instance and it will be very hard to migrate, as everyone will need to manually copy their contents outside of Riseup's instance.

+1. Additionally, there is the possibility that we might want to take a different route with "our" instance service-wise than Riseup. For instance, there could be a future where we want to have features enabled which the Riseup folks don't want and vice-versa (even though I don't see that future yet) and in that case it's easier to deal with that scenario if we don't have both instances mixed up.

comment:3 Changed 3 months ago by gk

Cc: gk added

comment:4 Changed 3 months ago by ln5

Todays sysadmin/serviceadmin meeting, at 14:00 UTC, will discuss who should operate this Tor Project-only instance and on what infrastructure it should be hosted. Here are some of the alternatives:

a) Hosted on Tor Project infrastructure, operated by Tor Project.
b) Hosted on Tor Project infrastructure, operated by Riseup.
c) Hosted on Riseup infrastructure, operated by Riseup.

comment:5 Changed 3 months ago by ln5

Resolution: fixed
Status: newclosed

From the TPA meeting today:

We're good with B or C for now. We can't give Riseup root so B would need to be running as UID != 0, but Riseup prefer to handle the machine themselves, so we'll go with C for now.

gaba is moving this forward from now on.

comment:6 Changed 6 weeks ago by anarcat

opened #32267 to track the setup of this instance, fwiw.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.