Re: [adam@flounder.net: Re: testing and no release schedule]
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:03, Ingo Juergensmann <ij@2004.bluespice.org> wrote:
> > I wouldn't run two compiles at the same time on one of the original
> > Pentium machines either.
>
> Why not? It's fast enough?
Old machines simply can't manage enough memory to cache two large source
trees. The original pentium machines had limitations of about 64M (if you
wanted the memory to be cached that is).
> Granted, arrakis has 7 SCSI disks on two different hostadapters with 5
> distributed swap partitions that are making swapping wonderful smooth, even
> if some evil perl tasks use >590 MB of memory.
Quite impressive. Such a machine should be able to sustain several builds at
the same time.
> Sure, parallel builds don't speed up things, but they don't necessarily
> need to slow down things either, when you do it right.
True.
> Well, if someone would ask me, I'd vote for removing this strange "this is
> a buildd, please don't use it for manual builds"-motd policy. It does not
> make any sense to me. When the buildd admin thinks, it will slow down the
> machine, he could get some more machines to broaden the load. And I don't
> think that f.e. mips has a hardware problem at all...
Fair points.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: