Re: saving sparc for etch requalification
In article <20051027081355.GC17675@sandbender> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
>On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 08:45:33AM -0700, Ben Collins wrote:
>> Wow, let's just stretch the meaning to burden things even more. "Needs two
>> buildd's", but wait "two machines isn't enough".
>as far as i see it (which isn't very far) auric is having problems, vore
>is considered to be too weak to count as a full buildd, and some new
>buildd is in the works. the new buildd is probably able to keep up by
>itself, so the only problem is the redundancy. judging from what
>db.d.o says vore isn't very fast, but it *should* be able to keep up.
>perhaps vore could be beefed up with a bit more memory or more/faster
>spindles? what hardware exactly is vore?
Vore is an Ultra-30 300Mhz with 512MB of ram. SCSI disks of course.
Ram could be upgraded, and 10K or 15K rpm disk put in (if it doesn't
already have them), but I doubt either would make a significant
difference. As a buildd, it's mostly CPU bound, and 300Mhz is the
fastest processor that sun ever supported in an Ultra 30.
Auric is a dual-proccessor Ultra-60 450 Mhz. SCSI disks, Ben may have
removed the external Raid box that was a maintance problem.
The ultra 5 and ultra 10 machines were designed as low-cost, and have
(for sun) crappy disk subsystems and reliability. I wouldn't recomend
one as a buildd, especially not without SCSI disks.
I don't know the specs of mrpurply, but it seems reasonably fast as a
Blars Blarson email@example.com
With Microsoft, failure is not an option. It is a standard feature.