<p dir="ltr">This probably has nothing to do with this conversation, but the keypad entry system is totally dark. Thanks for the work by those more familiar with this domain than I. -AnB</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 7, 2013 12:19 PM, "Ben Kochie" <<a href="mailto:ben@nerp.net">ben@nerp.net</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Mon, 7 Oct 2013, Omar Zouai wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I did consult the rack. Hence this current debate. Yes, when the network went down, the r00ter<br>
was rebooted multiple times. And yes, I let it sit for half an hour, both on and off. I did<br>
what was necessary to maintain a internet connection at the time in the space, and came up with<br>
an idea on how it can be improved.<br>
<br>
Yes, I did read the damned wiki while trying to get the internet back up(mobile data).<br>
<br>
CF Card? After 4 unsuccessful boots, I opened r00ter up. There wasn't a CompactFlash in it.,<br>
the only thing remotely visible to it is the WiFi chipset. Maybe this is a problem?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Are you sure you looked at the right box?<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Correction, Networking is simple, but will get more and more complex; which would be fine if<br>
all the equipment was "perfect", and did everything it was supposed to do without errors and<br>
never failed. But we don't live in a perfect world, things will have errors, and equipment<br>
will go offline. That's where the nightmare comes in.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, it was already as complex as it needed to be. We had a nice simple all-solid-state router to connect, failover, and load-balance our two ISPs. You want to replace this with a 150W server with fans and hard drives? And you call this "simpler"?<br>
<br>
We even simplified the network just a few months ago by removing two switches from the critical path and replaced it with one good Juniper switch.<br>
<br>
The noisebridge network is actively maintained by this group.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I highly doubt watching the rack is good enough to prevent fuckery. If someone was determined<br>
enough to do something stupid, they simply would just go do it, without consulting the Wiki or<br>
Rack.<br>
<br>
On Oct 7, 2013 3:53 AM, "Ben Kochie" <<a href="mailto:ben@nerp.net" target="_blank">ben@nerp.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
The network at noisebridge is not a toy for you to play<br>
with.<br>
<br>
<br>
Disclaimer: I actually agree that it would be much more convenient if<br>
the network wasn't dramatically gutted when not necessary. I only point<br>
out the following technicality.<br>
<br>
<br>
This is "doacracy" at its best (and worst). Technically, it is a toy<br>
that people could play with. It's a shame the play wasn't "playing<br>
nicely" with the work already done (and previously working).<br>
<br>
<br>
Actually, the network is one of the few places that is not a toy to play with. We<br>
(the rack list) keep an eye on things and try and keep the fuckery on the network<br>
to a minimum.<br>
<br>
Glen<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Rack mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Rack@lists.noisebridge.net">Rack@lists.noisebridge.net</a><br>
<a href="https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/rack" target="_blank">https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/rack</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>