Shadowfax (LFS server) is in need for a new home

Jeremy Herbison herbie at
Thu Oct 24 17:53:03 PDT 2002

I know you are in the Calgary area, have you contacted Shaw? I used to work
there so i can see if some strings can be pulled.

"Gerard Beekmans" <gerard at> wrote in message
news:200210231600.04052.gerard at
Hi guys,

Shadowfax, the main server, is in trouble. Our current
host VA Software will cease to provide colocation for the server at the end
of this month (so that means 7 more days) because of reorganizations in
IT department. All free-colocated servers that are not part of the network will be unplugged and sent back to their respective
owners. So that means in about two weeks I'll have the LFS server sitting at
my house.

I will take the opportunity to rebuild the server, maybe do some hardware
upgrades, but mainly put an LFS-CVS system on it. But then what...

As you can see, LFS needs a new home. We've tried contacting some ISPs but
nothing worked out. Either we don't get a response at all, or a rejection.

When the server goes offline, LFS won't die. Jesse has offered his server as
backup. Email will keep going, including mailinglists, as well as CVS. The
web and FTP sites will be offline but Jesse's apache listening to will contain the list of current mirrors we have so
books and packages can still be downloaded. IRC too will keep going.

So, development of LFS will be impeded since Jesse's box has as a strict
bandwidth limit (he gets charged when he goes over 10 GB/month, currently
we're doing 23 GB/day so we need to cut down seriously, though cutting out
FTP and HTTP will probably leave us with only a few dozen MB's a day. Email
doesn't take all that much).

While LFS will be limping around a bit (pardon the pun) I'm requestion
assistance from you LFS'ers. Is there anybody on this list who is able to
co-locate the LFS server? I must point out that I don't make any money off
LFS and personal funds aren't available to pay for it.

If a new home for the server can't be found, I'll probably fall back to
using's servers for all the bandwidth intensive stuff. However
colocation is of course preferred. It gives us a lot more freedom as how we
implement LFS and what services we provide and how they are provided. For
one, we'll probably have to get rid of the FTP archive because I currently
don't have access to the FTP mirrors to make updates.

Then the mailinglists archives: I don't want to burden Jesse's box too much
(regenerating the mailinglist archives daily is very CPU and I/O intensive
and it also uses up a lot of bandwidth (currently 10 GB/month or something
like that).

If you are able to make an offer, please contact me directly instead of
this list. It'll be quicker for me to go through personal email.

If you need details as to what kind of bandwidth the server is using when
used in its current capacity, visit

You'll find the MRTG graphs in particular most useful, as well as the
bandwidth stats. They give you the montly totals and the average contineous
upload speed (our current annual average is 1400 Kbit/sec, though the last
month it has been increasing to closer to 2500 to 3000 Kbit/sec)

Thanks guys,

Gerard Beekmans

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list