Buildd redundancy (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver...)
In article <20050314044505.GA5157@mauritius.dodds.net> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
>- the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number
> required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages
If we are going to require redundancy, I think we should do it better
- at least two buildd administrators
- systems located in at least two different facilities (different
cities and backbones if at all possible)
This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc.
This allows for redundancy in case of fire, flood, earthquake etc.
Blars Blarson email@example.com
With Microsoft, failure is not an option. It is a standard feature.