On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:09:58PM -0700, Bill Ricker wrote: > Following up on both the original posting re debcamp > and last month's discussion of need for a new buildd > On 19 Mar 2005, at 10:44 am, Steve Langasek wrote: > > The failed buildd is a Dual Alpha EV6 666MHz with > 512MB RAM and 33GB of > > disk. Replacement buildds for alpha should be of > comparable or greater > > specs; escher, which is known to *not* be able to > keep up with the unstable > > package queue, is an SX164 533. > So I infer that the AlphaServer 400 4/233's that are > easily available here at nearly no cost [*] are not > considered useful given the workload required of a > buildd, even if several were available? I don't know the AlphaServer 400 by name, but if this is an EV56 or below system, then no, such a system is not considered useful as a buildd because the time required to setup and support each system isn't justified by the amount of benefit we'd get from it. We need systems that make better use of (scarce) admin time. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature