OSUOSL datacenter migration and hosting costs for buildbot workers

[Baptiste Jonglez]

Hi,

OSUOSL is migrating to a new datacenter that will increase their hosting
costs, and they want to discuss how we could possibly contribute to costs.
Details quoted below.

They currently provide us 6 build workers (2 physical hosts and 4 VMs):

  https://openwrt.org/infrastructure#buildbot_workers

This infra has been working quite well since 2018, with different
iterations.  We haven't paid anything so far.

I see several possible directions:

1) establish a contract and start paying OSUOSL for the service using OpenWrt funds

2) stop using these buildbot workers

3) keep using these buildbot workers for free (same as today)

Personally I would prefer to continue working with OSUOSL, and I think we
have the funds to contribute financially.  They have been very
professional and responsive, the level of service is the same or even
better than companies like Hetzner.  We don't need to spend too much time
since they take care of everything (e.g. initial OS installation, hardware
repairs)

We could even maybe increase the number of workers: it seems more sustainable
than having project members paying buildbot workers from their own pockets.

What do you think?


OSUOSL request below:

> Due to significant infrastructure issues at the Kerr Datacenter, including a
> critical failure in one of the two main UPS systems and the high cost of
> necessary repairs, Oregon State University has made the decision to vacate this
> facility rather than invest further in it. As a result, OSL is required to
> relocate all of its equipment within the next few months (potentially sooner).
>
> Relocating to a new datacenter will increase OSL's operational costs for power,
> space, and connectivity compared to Kerr. Historically, OSL covered most costs,
> but higher expenses in new facilities mean sustainable hosting for dedicated
> physical hardware requires projects to contribute more directly to covering
> these operational expenses.
>
> For projects with existing contracts:
>
> We don't anticipate an immediate increase in your contractual costs. However,
> higher OSL costs overall may necessitate future discussions about pricing upon
> contract review/renewal.
>
> For projects without contracts:
>
> Facing significantly higher operational expenses in a new facility compared to
> Kerr, sustainable hosting for dedicated physical hardware will require projects
> to contribute more directly to covering these operational expenses. We
> understand that fully covering the total costs might be challenging for some
> projects, and we are flexible in working with you to find a solution. Our aim is
> to ensure the costs directly associated with hosting your physical equipment are
> addressed to make continued co-location sustainable.
>
> We want to partner with you to find a workable solution for contributing to
> these costs. We offer two primary paths for contribution: establishing a formal
> hosting contract (our preferred method) or providing an annual donation based on
> an estimate of your hosting costs. We are committed to working with you to find
> a mutually agreeable solution and will not remove any co-located hardware until
> a solution is in place. Please let us know in your reply if you would like to
> discuss these contribution options in more detail.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-adm/attachments/20250707/847310c2/attachment.sig>