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

Re: vancouver revisited

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 11:28:00PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>   [Andreas Barth]
> > > "machine" translates with partition btw - though the two different
> > > partitions should be in different physical locations, for obvious
> > > reasons. Yes, we want a redundancy for good reasons.

> [p2]
> > Which is very arbitrary to me, machine to me means physical box with
> > hardware and software doing stuff. So this requirement is very much
> > arbitrary and without any reasonable foundation.

> I don't think anyone ever said an official buildd cannot be used for
> any other purpose.  The s390 box is used as a buildd, but is also used
> for other things - I don't see the problem.  Of course, it's probably a
> bad idea to give out random shell access to the buildd's OS instance.

> The "reasonable foundation" for having a redundant buildd in a separate
> physical location is, I think, well-established.  Any random facility
> can lose power, perform big router upgrades, burn down, etc.  Debian
> machines also seem to be prone to bad RAM, bad power supplies, bad disk
> arrays, and the like, and these things can't always be fixed within a
> tight time window.

FWIW, it is not implicit in these requirements that a port must have
geographically separated buildds.  I don't think it's particularly
*wise* to keep them together, though; the first time a port goes
completely off-line for a week because the site's redundancy wasn't
redundant, we would certainly be scrutinizing the port in question.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: