On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:01:48PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 04:56:52AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 11:25:39AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:56:16PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > > > > Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> writes: > > > > > On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:48:54AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > >> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:34:21PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > >>> But setting up autobuilders doesn't require a new infrastructure > > > > >>> (and shouldn't require more than half a year). > > > > >>> Wasn't the infrastructure a prerequisite for woody and is working? > > > > >> It turned out that the central part of the existing infrastructure > > > > >> didn't scale up well enough to cope with the new architectures in sarge. > > > > > There are no new architectures in sarge. > > > > That's right, but the buildd network has to work for both oldstable and > > > > stable. potato + woody didn't need as many buildds as woody + sarge > > > > will need. > > > 17 -> 22 architectures is an increase, but doesn't look like a very > > > serious one. > > There were never security autobuilders for potato; and security and > > proposed-updates are separate queues. So in terms of centralized load on > > the wanna-build server, this is a jump from 22 (11 stable-security + 11 > > proposed-updates) to 33 (11 oldstable-security + 11 stable-security + 11 > > proposed-updates; AFAIK there is no oldstable-proposed-updates). > > If testing-security is brought on-line again for etch within the year > > following sarge's release (as I certainly hope it will), the peak number of > > wanna-build *databases* being served by ftp-master.d.o (saying nothing of > > the number of actual buildd connections) would be 66 (oldstable-security + > > stable-security + proposed-updates + testing-proposed-updates + > > testing-security + unstable, x 11 archs -- not counting prospective archs). > >... > > So at 44 the server was already at its limit, the release required a 25% > > increase in the number of databases (and roughly the same increase in the > > number of connections), and etch would have brought us up to 50% over that > > limit. > I'm glad to hear that you do no longer plan to drop architectures from > etch. :-) I no longer have any illusions that we'll be able to persuade the project that this is in Debian's best interest, or that we'll find an alternate solution that's acceptable to the porters of the architectures in question. In any case, given the number of prospective ports waiting in the wings, 11 is probably a roughly correct estimate even if we *do* drop some architectures. (And since non-release ports are likely to stay in unstable, and adding a release port adds three w-b databases where dropping one only removes two w-b databases, it takes 1 1/2 dropped archs to balance one added arch...) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature