Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:19:07 -0600
From:      Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net>
To:        Chuck Robey <chuckr@picnic.mat.net>
Cc:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: /usr/ports/ too big?
Message-ID:  <00021321052504.06543@nomad.dataplex.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002132042570.23833-100000@picnic.mat.net>
References:  <Pine.BSF.4.21.0002132042570.23833-100000@picnic.mat.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, you wrote:

> Excuse me Richard.  I don't want to make a real point of it, but you're
> partially right.  Yes, you're certainly right that ctm of ports is the
> major contributor to processing time; but I think I have to make clear, no
> one is hurting yet, in that regard.  CTM is only using about 60% of the
> available clock time on the machine (previous ctm runs, started every 8
> hours, always complete early enough not to interfere fatally with the next
> ones).  I watch load very carefully to keep it that way.  I *did* poll
> users about curtailing ctm services on the 2.2 branch in the next quarter
> or two, and I think I will do this because of the new RELENG_4 starting
> up, but things aren't at emergency point yet.
> 
> The machine is a pentium 120; maybe if things get worse sometime, the
> hardware could be upgraded.  Contrary to popular belief, there are still a
> large number of ctm users.
> 
> I just didn't want folks to think that I would allow ctm to drift into
> trouble.  I would *not* do that.
I didn't want to imply that you would not attempt to provide service in spite
of the fact that the load is constantly increasing and the hackers are ostrichs.

Truthfully, I'm not sure what the minimum acceptable level of service would be.
With so many users using "pull on demand", those left might be satisfied with
once/day service, etc. Who knows?

However, we could be giving much more frequent service if we were working from
a smaller tree. We used to do that, but had to reduce the frequency when my
machine started getting near the crisis point. As you, but perhaps not
most of the others, know, I provided both the hardware and
administration for CTM for a period of time. Finally, I had to give up trying to
do it because I couId not handle the load.
If we could increase the frequency of service, we might be able to
reduce the load on the demand servers, and thus the overall load on the total
resources of the organization. However, most of the developers don't care to
consider the "social" costs because it doesn't seem to affect them. They get
direct access to freefall and are not impacted by "distribution" problems. As I
have said, their attitude is "I've got mine and I don't care about anyone
else's problems"

I'm also sure that ALL the distribution servers are paying some penalty each
time they process the larger tree.

From my point of view, we are seeing the classic attitude -- throw more 
hardware at it rather than consider a change to the algorithm so that we use the
existing resources more efficiently.

The only problem with that is that the long term economics show that you save
in the long run by saving a little very many times.

And we are still plagued by sandboxers who cannot see over their cubicle walls.

-- 
Richard Wackerbarth
rkw@Dataplex.NET



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00021321052504.06543>