[Nfb-web] Non X Catalyst Hosting on NFB Server

[Steve Jacobson]

Pete and others,

As someone who has worked with the NFBNET system, I think we need to try not to loose sight of a number of things.

When we began taking on more and more lists, it was not done because we thought we could be a better list provider than yahoo, or other large listserves that were 
hosted at various universities.  Rather, we were trying to meet a specific need.  There was a need for a good number of lists dealing with various aspects of 
blindness.  What we were finding was that there were very accessible listserves, but then something would change and they suddenly were no longer accessible.  
In some cases, listserves disappeared altogether.  Moving a list from one place to another isn't that big a deal, but what about moving a hundred lists?  Even our 
quiet lists would have had to be moved or cancelled.  The nitch we tried to serve with NFBNET was to have a place where one could count on the supportting 
software for lists to be accessible six months or even several years later.  Generally, NFBNET has surpassed expectations there very well.

Pete, while you have a way of asking questions that puts one on the defensive, I think some of your points are well taken.  They have to be kept in some sort of 
perspective, though.  We provide a place for affilliates to get a virtually no-risk way to start a web site.  However, we have learned that the same level of acceptable 
downtime for lists is a problem for many web sites.  While the ability to raise funds through the internet has been there for some time, we've seen a marked increase 
even during the past year in the use of web sites as fundraising.  Those of us who are on the NFB-History list also know that the expectations for audio and video 
are rapidly rising.  We often reject the rates that some businesses charge for full service internet hosting as being unreasonable.  Frankly, some that offer reasonable 
rates are probably less reliable than ours.  The fact is, just buying two of everything doesn't get you reliability.  You have to pay for the people time to besure that 
configurations are correct and that various pieces of equipment are interchangeable.  They have to be monitoring when there is a problem and sometimes be 
physically present to resolve the problem.  It is a little hard to resolve a problem from a remote site when the problem is a DSL cable for example.  In other words, it 
takes some infrastructure.

The sophistication that we have among us varies greatly.  We have had a series of problems that have now been rectified by a completely new and larger server 
and our DSL problems have likely been resolved.  We had some difficulties because of a problem with a universal power supply that was fixed some time ago.  I 
think that there needs to be some time to see what sort of track record we can develop in terms of reliability.  However, I am not certain that we can or that we want 
to try to be the platform for a complicated web site that requires 99% uptime and a wide bandwidth of information flowing from it.  We are going to have to try to learn 
together where that point is when using our free service is probably not an option.  On the other hand, we will also be learning what can be done to make our 
service more reliable.  There are, for example, increases in DSL speed that might be helpful, or we may need to investigate a different sort of connection.  As was 
mentioned, there is the ability to locate a server at an ISP which makes the connections their problem and allows a faster connection as well, but this increases the 
costs.  The point is that we all need to grow and learn together, and it is a learning process.  While I know that rundraising through a web site is something that must 
be taken seriously, I also think that sometimes those of us who are close to this stuff forget that life actually does continue when a web site is down.  

Best regards,

Steve Jacobson.

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:16:26 -0400, Berggren, John wrote:

>In response to Pete's initial question, consideration was never given to
>non-xCatalyst hosting on the NFB web server.  The xCatalyst hosting
>solution is a fairly self-contained, well-supported environment, not to
>mention one with which we're intimately familiar.  Providing
>non-xCatalyst hosting to individual affiliates and divisions would
>require a level of support we're not prepared to offer.  It would also
>duplicate the efforts of David Andrews and the work he does on
>nfbnet.org.

>I very much understand the frustration of those suffering the
>consequences of service outages.  We've entered an era where people
>expect a great deal from their technology.  If you're a webmaster, it
>doesn't take long before your phone rings when a web page isn't
>available.  If you're a system administrator, it doesn't take long
>before your phone rings when a server connection isn't available.  And,
>of course, if you're an ISP, it doesn't take long before customers start
>calling about uptime.  Given their profit margins, I have much less
>sympathy for the Qwests of the world in this chain of frustration.

>At any rate, I think Dave has been able to supply a very stable
>environment dating back into the nineties.  There have most assuredly
>been a series of irksome growing pains as of late.  I think these are
>largely behind us.

>Before undertaking the latest round of hardware upgrades, Dave and I did
>discuss the possibility of moving to a commercially hosted server, as
>Everett suggested.  This solution has a price tag, and as Gary
>indicated, the current economic environment does limit our options.
>Third-party hosting is perhaps an idea we should revisit periodically,
>considering the pros and cons along with funding scenarios.  Dave
>correctly points out that there are some hurdles to migrating to an
>external server, but it makes good sense for him and me to maintain an
>ongoing dialogue over the concept.

>There are inherent limitations to free solutions, but, on the other
>hand, there's always plenty of room in affiliate coffers for free
>solutions.  We're certainly fortunate to have Dave and his small band of
>collaborators to keep things running.  (Ruth Anne put it far more
>eloquently than I could.)  Looking forward, we'll make sure Dave has
>what he needs to keep things running smoothly, now and into the future.

>Questions, rants, ponderings, and suggestions are all part of the
>dialogue that keeps us moving towards the best solutions.  Let's keep it
>all flowing.

>Regards,
>John

>John Berggren
>IT Director
>National Federation of the Blind
>1800 Johnson Street
>Baltimore, MD 21230
> 
>P : 410-659-9314 x2329
>F : 410-685-5653
>E : jberggren at nfb.org
> 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: nfb-web-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-web-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>Behalf Of David Andrews
>Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 6:42 AM
>To: NFB Webmaster's List
>Subject: Re: [Nfb-web] Non X Catalyst Hosting on NFB Server

>The problems lately have been with the line connecting to the 
>internet.  We replaced the server about 6 months ago with one with 
>dual swappable power supplies and drives.  One problem with moving 
>the server (or changing it to a commercial site,) would be that a 
>bunch of sites share an IP address, and if everyone had to change, it 
>would cause lots of problems.

>Dave

>At 09:46 PM 3/23/2009, you wrote:
>>Good evening,
>>
>>Not being a member of NFB or knowing anything about the current server
>>specifications / traffic load I wonder what the cost of moving this
>>over to a commercially hosted server would be if shared across all
>>parties who make use of the resource?  I would expect that leasing a
>>reliable server from a commercial provider would only have a nominal
>>cost to each affiliate who wishes to share the cost.
>>
>>Just a thought,
>>Everett
>>
>>
>>On 23-Mar-09, at 4:52 PM, Peter Donahue wrote:
>>
>>>Hello Michael and listers,
>>>
>>>         It's more a question of reliability than features. There has
>>>been a rash of NFB Net outages since the beginning of the year and my
>>>frustration and desire to do the best job I can for the affiliates
>>>whose
>>>sites I manage continues to heighten. My patience with this
>>>situation is
>>>beginning to wear thin; particularly when you consider that I manage
>>>about 12 affiliate sites hosted on NFB Net and have multiple requests
>>>from these affiliates to make changes to pages on their Web sites. I
>>>edit their pages and attempt to post them only to discover that NFB
>>>Net
>>>is down.
>>>
>>>         One affiliate has a state convention coming up this weekend
>and
>>>I need to post information related to their convention including the
>>>streaming links. I'm preparing the pages, but God only knows when I'll
>>>be able to upload them due to these outages. Our Writers' Division has
>>>asked me to post content to their site. I have it ready to go, but
>>>can't
>>>upload it because NFB Net is down.
>>>
>>>                 We all appreciate what NFB Net offers in the way of
>Web
>>>space and other resources. However as NFB Net grows the need to
>>>address
>>>matters like these outages must be delt with. If this organization can
>>>find $20,000,000 to build the Jernigan Institute we ought to be able
>>>to
>>>find the funding to address this issue. No more crying poverty please.
>>>If these outages continue to occur perhaps this topic should be one
>>>for
>>>discussion at this summer's Webmasters meeting. I know Dave is doing
>>>all
>>>he can on his end. Perhaps we all need to put our heads together to
>>>find
>>>a solution to address this matter, one that is effective and that
>>>won't
>>>be costly to implement. Yes it's important to be grateful for what we
>>>have, but there comes a point where simply being grateful isn't
>>>enough.
>>>
>>>I've told some individuals privately that to me our Web sites are
>>>those
>>>of Fortune 500 Companies; not just those of a non-profit
>>>organization. I
>>>approach each project I've done for the NFb and others as if it were
>>>for
>>>a Fortune 500 Company. As such companies do all they can to prevent
>>>their Web sites from being down and unavailable to the public. One
>>>need
>>>not have the big bucks of a Fortune 500 company to insure that their
>>>organization's Web site will have 99.9999999%up-time. Perhaps this
>>>topic
>>>needs more discussion, myths debunked, and potential solutions
>>>explored.
>>>As a member of our Webmasters Committee I'm willing to do whatever
>>>research is needed to find a remedy for these outages.
>>>
>>>         And what about the philosophical end of things? I would be
>>>extremely embarrassed as an affiliate president to refer members and
>>>potential members and supporters to visit a Web site not knowing if
>>>it's
>>>going to be available or not. That doesn't bode well for us and our
>>>belief that the blind can succeed as computer and Web professionals.
>>>
>>>         I noticed that  the NFB server in Baltimore is hardly down. I
>>>only recall one instance when the NFB National sites were down and
>>>that
>>>was for a few days last year. It was this that got me to wonder if
>>>non X
>>>Catalyst hosting could be made available on the NFB server for
>>>affiliates that prefer not to use X Catalyst allowing them to use
>>>whatever design methodologies they chose for building their Web sites.
>>>
>>>         Sorry for the rant. I'm trying to fulfill the requests turned
>in
>>>to me by affiliates for their Web sites that need servicing. Here's
>>>hoping we'll see the light at the end of the tunnel soon. All the best
>>>for a great week.
>>>
>>>A very frustrated Peter Donahue
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: nfb-web-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-web-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>>>On
>>>Behalf Of Michael Hansen
>>>Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 10:50 PM
>>>To: NFB Webmaster's List
>>>Subject: Re: [Nfb-web] Non X Catalyst Hosting on NFB Server
>>>
>>>
>>>Peter,
>>>
>>>The only reason why a site would have been hosted on the nfb.org
>>>server
>>>instead of the nfbnet.org server was because that is were the x
>>>Catalyst
>>>software was installed. What features or functionality are you looking
>>>for that is not available on the nfbnet.org server?
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>---
>>>Mike Hansen
>>>NFB of Nebraska
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Peter Donahue
><pdonahue1 at sbcglobal.net >
>>>wrote:
>>>>Hello everyone,
>>>>
>>>>    During last year's webmasters workshop the plan offered by our
>>>>national office for affiliates wishing to host their Web sites via X
>>>>Catalyst was explained. Has a non X Catalyst hosting plan for
>>>>affiliates wanting to host their sites on the NFB Server been
>>>>considered, and what would be the cost? I'm envisioning something
>>>>similar to what is now offered on NFB Net, but the affiliate sites
>>>>would be hosted on the NFB Server instead of NFB Net. Just thought I
>>>>would ask.
>>>>
>>>>Peter Donahue
>>>>

>_______________________________________________
>Nfb-web mailing list
>Nfb-web at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-web_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Nfb-web:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-web_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40visi.com