[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: armel boxes for Debian

Joey Hess wrote:
If we had an armel buildd that used ccache and had pre-built versions of
all the security sensitive packages in its cache, updates for most
packages could probably be built in a timeframe that compares with other
architectures. Aside from the complexity of setting this up and desire
for KISS, is there any reason not to consider doing this?

I bet the ccache would be volatile enough that you wouldn't be able to exploit it repeatably. But you could task that maintenance work to the machine itself, so there's no reason not configure it that way.

I think the reality is that ARM machines just can't compete with the high-horsepower machines in x86 and PPC worlds. If that makes us "second-class citizens" to the Security team, there's no point in denying it.

I like the idea that Security patches come out as quickly as they can, without being gated by the performance of a slow architecture. Compared to x86, ARM isn't a very inviting exploit target so if we're 12 hours behind them, I really don't see the problem.

Far better that we tune for consistency configuration-wise with the rest of Debian, methinks, and just accept that our CPUs are slower. Over time, the performance gap may close without us doing anything special, but if we produce a headache-inducing setup in an attempt to improve performance in the near-term, then we have to go through more work to undo that setup later when we get faster chips. I don't like to do work twice!

Just my (non-DD) opinion...

BTW, I've got my n4100 running armel now, and even with 512MB the performance is ... underwhelming. And by ARM standards, this machine is big-iron!

Bill Gatliff

Reply to: