Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 01:27:47 +1000 From: Mark R Russell <mark@mark.net.au> To: Ken Smith <kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU> Cc: hubs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CVSup port upgrade Message-ID: <424973F3.60402@mark.net.au> In-Reply-To: <1112109734.19982.46.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu> References: <XFMail.20050325134703.jdp@polstra.com> <1112109734.19982.46.camel@opus.cse.buffalo.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ken Smith wrote:
>On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 13:47 -0800, John Polstra wrote:
>
>
>
>>The fix for the bug is in the cvsupd server. Lots of people
>>would appreciate it if you'd upgrade your cvsup installation to
>>"cvsup-16.1h_2" (or the cvsup-without-gui port with the same
>>revision).
>>
>>
>
>The three machines I more or less watch over:
>
> cvsup{5,8,18}.freebsd.org/cvsup{9,18}.us.freebsd.org
> cvsup9.freebsd.org
> cvsup10.{us.}freebsd.org
>
>should be all set. I'll do cvsup-master some time soon, given its
>clients this bug shouldn't be biting any of them (mostly just mirror
>sites).
>
>That first one on the list could still use a little help... It's what I
>point existing names at when a site disappears on us. Of the names it's
>currently supporting we could use:
>
> 1) Two new sites in the USA to take over cvsup{9,18}.us.freebsd.org
> 2) Two sites anywhere in the world to take over
> cvsup{8,18}.freebsd.org.
>
>
cvsup2.au.freebsd.org has been updated. I'm willing to take over one of
the empty top level cvsup server entries probably 18 though due to our
geographic location, though I'll leave that upto you.
>For (2) we would be looking for already existing sites that have a
>large-ish server set up for it but you feel it is currently severely
>under-utilized. We would like the servers in the TLD to be established
>sites with a good track record, good network connectivity, and capable
>of handling a fairly significant load. Based on observing the three
>machines I watch over it's best if the machine have 1Gb to 2Gb of RAM
>and, if possible, SCSI disks (SCSI disks is less important if it's got
>2Gb memory). With that the machine can typically handle 15 to 25
>simultaneous clients and still remain "responsive" (meaning it doesn't
>take forever for each client to finish its updates). With less than 1Gb
>RAM the servers tend to become *severely* I/O bound.
>
>If you'd like to volunteer for any of the above let me know. :-)
>
>
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?424973F3.60402>