> I don't know why you're asking me; I've already said that I would consider
> this configuration acceptable for a release architecture, but that I
> wouldn't recommend it to the Sparc porters.
What do you mean "wouldn't recommend it to the sparc porters"? And what
does your recommendation count f
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 07:08:14AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > For sparc, a second buildd was brought on-line on auric this year because
> > (IIRC) vore was not keeping up with the upload volume at the time; this
> > required effort on DSA's part to clear enough disk space to be able to run a
> >
> For sparc, a second buildd was brought on-line on auric this year because
> (IIRC) vore was not keeping up with the upload volume at the time; this
> required effort on DSA's part to clear enough disk space to be able to run a
> buildd, until which time sparc was holding some RC bugfixes out of t
It's also not something that would totally destroy an architecture's
ability to release. Yes, it would be bad, but not the end of the world.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:36:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think they are designed too stringent
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 02:36:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think they are designed too stringently. Guidelines should describe the
> > level of stability an arch is required to meet, and let the implementation
> > be whatever is needed, o
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:34:44PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> One of my hopes for the new ftp/scc criteria is that buildds will be
> much better maintained than they are currently, with a single set of
> clear standards, which every single buildd is required to follow, and
> with extra bui
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 06:17:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> The primary alpha buildd last summer, lully.d.o, went off-line due to
> hardware failures and we were left with an under-powered backup, escher,
> that was unable to keep up with the package load. This persisted for more
> than a mo
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 01:26:38PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> speed. I don't recall any architecures falling behind miserably just
> because a buildd went down for an extended period, but I do recall some
Isn't that the situation with arm right now? Or at least that arm is
struggling to recover f
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 01:26:38PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> I think they are designed too stringently. Guidelines should describe the
> level of stability an arch is required to meet, and let the implementation
> be whatever is needed, on a per arch basis, to meet those requirements.
> The guid
Ben Collins wrote:
These are all rather moot points anyway. We don't have that kind of
redundancy for our own list server, or ftp-master for that matter.
I can't speak for the list server or archives, but for ftp-master and
bugs.d.o we do have redundancy -- the backups of both on merkel are
desig
* Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The guidelines are aimed at the wrong thing is my point.
I agree with this. I also think that this is one of the reasons why
there's been so much uproar about them.
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
I think they are designed too stringently. Guidelines should describe the
level of stability an arch is required to meet, and let the implementation
be whatever is needed, on a per arch basis, to meet those requirements.
The guidelines should not say something like "needs two buildds minimum",
but
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think they are designed too stringently. Guidelines should describe the
> level of stability an arch is required to meet, and let the implementation
> be whatever is needed, on a per arch basis, to meet those requirements.
I think a reasonable requireme
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why does everyone have a sudden interest in the sparc buildds? It has
> always had one buildd until auric was no longer needed for ftp-master.
> Things were fine back then, and still fine now. No one complained then,
> why is everyone complaining now that
Why does everyone have a sudden interest in the sparc buildds? It has
always had one buildd until auric was no longer needed for ftp-master.
Things were fine back then, and still fine now. No one complained then,
why is everyone complaining now that I want to put a better single machine
in place?
Hi Ben,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:32:37PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 06:11:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > The requirement sucks, lets leave it at that. If the machine dies, I can
> > > have two to replace it withi
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:48:04PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Thursday 17 March 2005 07:31, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > Don't even bother bringing up "redundant fiber". It may be, if it hasn't
> > been regroomed, and twenty plus years of network administrators have
> > learned the hard way that th
On Thursday 17 March 2005 07:31, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> Don't even bother bringing up "redundant fiber". It may be, if it hasn't
> been regroomed, and twenty plus years of network administrators have
> learned the hard way that the gun is ALWAYS loaded. The best you can hope
> for is a misfire.
Debi
Read my previous replies.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:01:07AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 10:54]:
> > Ah, so why is vore down now for some time now? If it's so easy to
>
> that should read as auric of course.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Andi
Vore isn't down.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:54:18AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 03:25]:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:31:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:44:49PM -080
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:32:37PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> Ok, I can guarantee that it never dies.
Sorry, but I do not believe you. "Never" is a very strong word.
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/11/msg01926.html
Dave
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:30:28 -0500, Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>The requirement sucks, lets leave it at that. If the machine dies, I can
>have two to replace it within a day or two.
If you happen to be available at that time.
Greetings
Marc
--
--
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 10:54]:
> Ah, so why is vore down now for some time now? If it's so easy to
that should read as auric of course.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D
* Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 03:25]:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:31:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:44:49PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> > > > >I have
* Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 01:30]:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:44:49PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> > >I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid), but I
> > >haven't gotten an ok from James to do so yet.
> > That wou
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:32:37PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 06:11:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > The requirement sucks, lets leave it at that. If the machine dies, I can
> > > have two to replace it within a d
Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > getting things back. The point of the N+1 rule, as I understand it,
> > is to give a different kind of redundancy, so that we don't have to
> > wait a day or two.
>
> How many current debian services are
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> getting things back. The point of the N+1 rule, as I understand it,
> is to give a different kind of redundancy, so that we don't have to
> wait a day or two.
How many current debian services are hosted that way?
Greetings
Bernd
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, e
Auric is down, because it is a only a U60. I attempted to move some drives
around, and I did put them in the wrong place.
The delay in getting it fixed is, as I said, getting a response from James
to move the new machine there. No reason to fix auric if I can just
replace it.
Stop chasing red her
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stop chasing red herrings, and just get back to work. Sparc has always
> been and always will be a maintained architecture.
Actually, work right now consists of answering paniced emails from my
students worried about their test on Friday, and waiting for
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 06:11:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The requirement sucks, lets leave it at that. If the machine dies, I can
> > have two to replace it within a day or two.
> >
> > The point being, there's no reason to have two sepe
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, I can guarantee that it never dies. The hardrives are raid 5
> configuration, and the power supplies are redundant, and if any of the
> three cpu/mem boards goes bad, I can just remove it and let the other two
> (4x cpu's and 4gigs ram) run. Then there
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:31:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:44:49PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> > > >I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid),
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The requirement sucks, lets leave it at that. If the machine dies, I can
> have two to replace it within a day or two.
>
> The point being, there's no reason to have two seperate machines when one
> can do the job. As long as it keeps up, then there shoul
Ben Collins wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:44:49PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>> >I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid), but I
>> >haven't gotten an ok from James to do so yet.
>>
>> That would cut the number of sparc buildd
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:44:49PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> > >I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid), but I
> > >haven't gotten an ok from James to do so yet.
> >
> > That would cu
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:44:49PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid), but I
> >haven't gotten an ok from James to do so yet.
>
> That would cut the number of sparc buildds down to one, when two a
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> According to db.d.o:
>
>The complete URL is http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi just for
>reference.
>
>> - auric: RAID is dead (and auric is basically demilitarized since the
>>compromise -- not even running a buildd, although I'm not
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid), but I
>haven't gotten an ok from James to do so yet.
That would cut the number of sparc buildds down to one, when two are
required for RC archtectures under the new proposal.
--
Blars Blar
* Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-15 17:42]:
> > (I'm not sure what you refer to. The only thing I can think of is
> > possibly Alioth, but I'm not convinced buying a new machine will help
> > at this stage. costa is doing pretty well right now and HP has
> > committed to a new box by
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 02:28:13PM +, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> * Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-15 11:44]:
> > - auric: RAID is dead (and auric is basically demilitarized since the
> >compromise -- not even running a buildd, although I'm not sure
> >
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:20:07AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We can move services to supported architectures, but there is of
> > course one major problem: DSA is only willing to host stable .d.o
> > boxes but if many architectures don't
Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We can move services to supported architectures, but there is of
> course one major problem: DSA is only willing to host stable .d.o
> boxes but if many architectures don't have stable releases, they will
> not be able to offer developer accessible po
* Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:17:54AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > * Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-15 11:04]:
> > > > > Also, this will make two ultrasparc machines av
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The problem isn't there, it's that we're not used to spending Debian
>> funds when we need to. This has already been discussed a couple of
>> weeks ago :)
>
> Where was this and wh
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:17:54AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > * Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-15 11:04]:
> > > > Also, this will make two ultrasparc machines available for some of our
> > > > new
> > > > spar
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:10:49PM +, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project
Leader wrote:
> * Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-15 11:04]:
> > > Also, this will make two ultrasparc machines available for some of our new
> > > sparc developers. I can't pay to ship them, but if Debian foots
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:04:42AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Also, this will make two ultrasparc machines available for some of our new
> > sparc developers. I can't pay to ship them, but if Debian foots the bill,
> > I'll get them to the right ppl.
* Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-15 16:47]:
> The problem isn't there, it's that we're not used to spending Debian
> funds when we need to. This has already been discussed a couple of
> weeks ago :)
Where was this and what should we (have) spent money on?
(I'm not sure what you refer
* Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> * Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-15 11:04]:
> > > Also, this will make two ultrasparc machines available for some of our new
> > > sparc developers. I can't pay to ship them, but if Debian foots the bill,
> > > I'll
* Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-15 11:04]:
> > Also, this will make two ultrasparc machines available for some of our new
> > sparc developers. I can't pay to ship them, but if Debian foots the bill,
> > I'll get them to the right ppl.
>
> I'd be willing to help with the shipping bill
* Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Also, this will make two ultrasparc machines available for some of our new
> sparc developers. I can't pay to ship them, but if Debian foots the bill,
> I'll get them to the right ppl.
I'd be willing to help with the shipping bill, and possibly with the
h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for following up.
>> BTW, couldn't we get our acts together and buy new disks for all those
>> poor machines which disks are dead ?
>
> If there is demonstrated ne
* Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-15 16:06]:
> > I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid), but I
> Suddenly it occures to me that we might have no stable release for
> some important machines in our infrastructure once etch is out.
We can move services to supported
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Ben Collins wrote:
I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid), but I
Suddenly it occures to me that we might have no stable release for
some important machines in our infrastructure once etch is out.
H
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
--
To UNSUBSC
> As I understand it, the plan was to convert auric into a buildd but
> the RAID needs to be fixed. Ben Collins was looking into this but I
> don't know about the status. I've also heard discussions several
> months ago about using one of Ben's really fast machines.
>
> This is based on what I'v
* Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-15 11:44]:
> > I wonder also, do we still not have some sun donated sparc box
> > running part of our infrastructure ? How will that stay if we drop
> > sparc support ?
> According to db.d.o:
The complete URL is http://db.debian.org/machines.cgi just f
57 matches
Mail list logo
