On 09/03/19 14:36, Mark Roszko wrote:
Honestly, problems on a timescale of just 10 hours of reporting so far
can just be some backhaul operator screwing up their peering or even
having hardware failing and causing performance issues with certain
routes.
/
/One needs to wait and see if they
On 09/03/19 14:36, Mark Roszko wrote:
Honestly, problems on a timescale of just 10 hours of reporting so far
can just be some backhaul operator screwing up their peering or even
having hardware failing and causing performance issues with certain
routes.
/
/One needs to wait and see if they
On 09/03/19 16:56, Clemens Koller wrote:
On 09/03/2019 14.27, Rene Pöschl wrote:
It might help if you could state where on this planet you are. The
problem seems to either be location or time dependent.
Germany, Munich.
Regardless of that, the problem is likely not server-side.
Clemens
We are talking about the download speed for nightly builds right now.
(At least that was the problem i reported)
I doubt torrents would help here as i highly doubt nightly builds will
ever reach the critical mass required for torrents to be effective.
On 10/03/19 04:09, Andrew Lutsenko wrote:
If you have to choose just one method of distribution, then sure, torrents
are not the best.
But there is absolutely no reason to stay away from them since there is no
such limitation, we can have both mirrors and magnet links. Good portion of
tech savy people will choose p2p download because it
Mirrors are better. Torrents are either not allowed on some networks or
people don't know how to use them or don't care to install the required
software, some of which is not malware/ad-free.
So my suggestion is to stay away from torrents.
On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 3:23 PM Andrew Lutsenko wrote:
>
On 09/03/2019 19:03, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> Rather than try to figure out every possible merge combination, I'm
> going to prioritize things serially per editor. The highest priority
> are changes those that will or potentially impact later features.
>
Hi Wayne,
If I may add my 5 cents -
On 08/03/2019 21:41, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> Tom,
>
> On 2/22/2019 10:17 AM, Tomasz Wlostowski wrote:
>> On 21/02/2019 21:21, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> Since we are nearing the 5.1.0 release, I want to get an idea of what
>>> major merges are ready to go once 5.1 is branched. I know Jon's
I think torrents are the best solution.
Even when servers function normally on each release there is a stampede to
download new binary and things slow down to a crawl. I don't know if moving
to CERN servers (AWS servers?) will help but torrents certainly would.
It's as simple as creating a
Hi Wayne and the rest of the team,
My code is located here:
https://github.com/craftyjon/kicad/tree/bus_upgrades
(I can rebase/format this as a patchset to make review easier if needed)
Documentation updates are in this branch:
https://github.com/craftyjon/kicad-doc/tree/bus_upgrades
On Sat, Mar 09, 2019 at 01:22:39PM -0500, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> Thanks. If we are having issues with the CERN download speeds (although
> it is not entirely evident that is the issue) it would be good to have
> alternate mirrors for users to try if they are having issues with the
> main
Thanks. If we are having issues with the CERN download speeds (although
it is not entirely evident that is the issue) it would be good to have
alternate mirrors for users to try if they are having issues with the
main download server.
On 3/9/2019 11:27 AM, Mark Roszko wrote:
> I believe Nick was
Rather than try to figure out every possible merge combination, I'm
going to prioritize things serially per editor. The highest priority
are changes those that will or potentially impact later features.
Jon's netlist work would be the obvious candidate for the schematic
editor. Jon, please post
I believe Nick was in talks with them, I shall poke him.
On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 11:08 AM Wayne Stambaugh
wrote:
> A third party has expressed interest in providing download mirrors for
> KiCad. What would it take on our end to make this happen other than
> providing the mirror links on the
A third party has expressed interest in providing download mirrors for
KiCad. What would it take on our end to make this happen other than
providing the mirror links on the KiCad website?
Wayne
On 3/9/2019 10:56 AM, Clemens Koller wrote:
> On 09/03/2019 14.27, Rene Pöschl wrote:
>> It might
On 09/03/2019 14.27, Rene Pöschl wrote:
> It might help if you could state where on this planet you are. The
> problem seems to either be location or time dependent.
Germany, Munich.
Regardless of that, the problem is likely not server-side.
Clemens
On 09/03/2019 14.27, Rene Pöschl wrote:
> It
Honestly, problems on a timescale of just 10 hours of reporting so far can
just be some backhaul operator screwing up their peering or even having
hardware failing and causing performance issues with certain routes.
One needs to wait and see if they persist for more than day.
On Sat, Mar 9, 2019
It might help if you could state where on this planet you are. The
problem seems to either be location or time dependent.
On 09/03/19 14:21, Clemens Koller wrote:
I cannot confirm such a slow download.
I get 23MBytes/s speed from https://kicad-downloads.s3.cern.ch which is the max
I can get
I cannot confirm such a slow download.
I get 23MBytes/s speed from https://kicad-downloads.s3.cern.ch which is the max
I can get here.
Regards,
Clemens
On 09/03/2019 12.38, Rene Pöschl wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> it seems that some of our users struggle to download nightly builds for
> windows from
That particular commit didn't, but latest is good.
lør. 9. mar. 2019 07.27 skrev Simon Richter :
> Hi,
>
> the documentation failed to compile for me last night:
>
> https://jenkins.simonrichter.eu/job/any-kicad-doc-head/569/
>
> Is that just me, or is something broken?
>
>Simon
>
>
Hi,
it seems that some of our users struggle to download nightly builds for
windows from the cern servers right now.
Is this an expected sideeffect of the server move or is there currently
a problem?
The original report was made over here:
21 matches
Mail list logo
