Re: .d.o machines which are down (Re: Questions for the DPL candidates)
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:31:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ben Collins <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:44:49PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> > > In article <[🔎] 20050315121332.GI1437@internal> you write:
> > > >I have an e3500 to replace both auric and vore (and the raid), but I
> > > >haven't gotten an ok from James to do so yet.
> > >
> > > That would cut the number of sparc buildds down to one, when two are
> > > required for RC archtectures under the new proposal.
> > That's ok because two buildd's can run on the one machine. It has 6 cpu's.
> That cannot be the requirement. The point has to be an additional and
> independently functioning piece of hardware. If the disk blows or it
> is compromised or something, the others should be able to continue.
The requirement sucks, lets leave it at that. If the machine dies, I can
have two to replace it within a day or two.
The point being, there's no reason to have two seperate machines when one
can do the job. As long as it keeps up, then there should be no cause for
Debian - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/