[ Note CC: and Reply-To: to d-project ] On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 03:25:03PM +0200, Mattias Wadenstein wrote: >On Thu, 14 Oct 2004, Colin Watson wrote: >> >>It's not usually desperately loaded, although occasionally a big spam >>run can cause issues. It's probably less bad than gluck, although I >>think I might have concerns about running cdimage on a restricted >>machine; it's very useful for d-i developers to be able to log in and >>poke about at what went wrong with a CD build. > >Ok, so do we have a better idea of a good machine to use for CD builds? Or >should we just keep on using gluck, despite it being rather slow? Gluck currently looks to be too slow to be at all useful; see Manty's earlier mail. The easiest way to get CD/DVD builds done may be to move them off to separate machine(s) altogether. To do builds in an acceptable time needs a reasonable-spec machine, ideally with fast disks. Disk performance falls through the floor as more people start using the same spindles, so we're much better off if we can get a dedicated machine or, failing that, a dedicated set of disks for the mirror and build space. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature