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

Re: About the broken jigdos and gluck's load

[ 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

Reply to: