On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 22:02, Christopher Sawtell wrote: > On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 11:48, Fisher, Robert (FXNZ CHC) wrote: > > Would there be any problems running some of the distcc machines via a > > secondary switch (in the house) off the main switch (in the garage)? That > > way I could set up the laptops inside and out of the way. > > I can well understand you desire to have them out of harms way. > That is a consideration which should overrides any other. > > imho, a cable between two switches will probably be able to carry the > traffic provided there are not too many client machines. I would expect > that six would be no problem. A dozen or two might give network overload > problems. Part of the purpose of the day is to discover this sort of thing.
unfortunately last year we spent too long getting the compile farm working and not enough time compiling LOL. We should be better off this year. I think network throughput is a big factor, but I'm not sure whether a single pipe between the two switches will create a problem. hopefully not. which reminds me: robert - do you have a dhcp server? can u set it up to dish out "static" IP addresses, ie associate a MAC address to an IP address. The reason I ask is that there will be a couple of machines to act as servers, for distfiles and portage. It would be nice to set their addresses in advance to make it easier to produce some docos on where to point the make.conf files to. Also, what is our approach to stages and binaries? Although it does not produce the most fully optimised system, I think we should go for: 1. start with stage 3. 2. use the binaries from 2004.0. People then get a system up and running quite quckly and can then concentrate on getting updated to the latest versions and/or getting packages for which there are no precompiled binaries. Thoughts and opinions welcomed.
