Re: Status of glibc-related service cost review for CTI?

On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 3:37 PM Konstantin Ryabitsev <
[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 08:18:20AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > Konstantin,
> >
> > This issue came up in today's CTI TAC meeting and I took the AI to email
> you here.
> >
> > Do we have an update on the status of the cost of CTI supporting glibc's
> service requirements?
> >
> > Is glibc too small to even count?
> >
> > Does it make it hard to estimate?
> >
> > Would you rather budget this or estimate a price based on load or
> resources used?
> >
> > We have a similar outstanding question to ensure the LF's BBB instance
> stays funded for glibc
> > community patch review meetings, CTI TAC meetings, and possibly Office
> Hours for the projects.
>
> Carlos:
>
> I think there's a general disconnect on the topic of costs. As far as LF
> IT is
> concerned, your migration, hosting, and support is already covered via
> OpenSSF
> directed funds. I understand that it's important for you to properly
> understand the cost of running the project on the LF IT infrastructure, but
> it's not a trivial matter to come up with a precise number. A lot of it
> would
> be running on shared resources that serve several other projects or on
> infrastructure that is straight-out donated to LF (e.g. via CDN and Equinix
> Metal frontends that serve most of our traffic). Some of the cloud
> environments we use have special agreements with LF, such as our Openstack
> partner, Vexxhost, who excludes bandwidth from their bills because they
> know
> we try to serve any large requests from other resources.
>
> So, if we try to calculate an accurate "slice of IT" that glibc would be
> using, it would too difficult to come up with a meaningful number. If you
> like, we'll be happy to pass along any invoices that are exclusive to
> CTI infrastructure -- we do it for transparency reasons with many other
> projects.
>
> In general, LF IT is ready to start moving you over at any time -- in
> whole,
> piecemeal, or in any other form that makes it least disruptive to the
> members
> of your community. I suggest we focus on the technical aspects of this
> migration -- once we start receiving bills, I'll be happy to pass along any
> and all of them that are exclusive to CTI so you have a clear picture.
>

Hi, Konstantin

Thanks for your effort to analyze the services and the costs.

Yes, the CTI work is covered through an OpenSSF directed fund, but we, CTI,
are responsible for the directed funds.  OpenSSF has generously agreed to
bootstrap CTI, but we need to create a self-sustaining organization in the
long run.  Carlos, I, and the OpenSSF leadership need an estimate of the
cost to determine how much we need to fundraise.

We thought that LF IT could estimate the cost of the services for just
GLIBC and separately the total cost for the eventual inclusion of all of
the GNU Toolchain projects.  If that is impractical, then maybe we need to
calculate the cost based on a metric for the proportional use of LF IT
systems by CTI relative to the other tenants, such as the bandwidth,
transaction to gitolite, mail messages, size of repository, or the cpu
usage of the VMs providing the services.  I don't mean a variable amount
each month, but we base it on the proportion of usage of LF IT shared
services instead of based on independent services in isolation.

Thanks, David