Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:13:59 -0700
From:      Kent Stewart <kstewart@urx.com>
To:        Gabriel Ambuehl <gabriel_ambuehl@buz.ch>
Cc:        stable@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: CVSup server loads (was: Stable broken)
Message-ID:  <39780647.10DBCA85@urx.com>
References:  <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007200001080.84615-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> <3976A60C.BE9DE986@urx.com> <20000720095625.A91025@hdroam.ssd.loral.com> <3977334E.AE1F303F@urx.com> <200007202101.OAA17106@vashon.polstra.com> <39777C0E.C44DC92F@urx.com> <7223761166.20000721003801@buz.ch> <39778C79.FDA0662E@urx.com> <12457756279.20000721100436@buz.ch>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


Gabriel Ambuehl wrote:
> 
> Hello Kent,
> 
> Friday, July 21, 2000, 1:34:17 AM, you wrote:
> > cvsup of source requires around 4-5 minutes for me. There have been
> > times when a RELENG_4 src-all via 768Kbs a DSL connection required
> > just as long as it did when I was using my 56kb modem. When it is the
> > disk, the connection speed doesn't matter much.
> 
> Hmm. I don't think the disk is the limiting factor here. I think it
> really is the current load on the cvsup servers.

I was only adding a comment that one of the mirror owners made. The
checking of the MD5 signature was supposed to be the limiting factor.
The mirrors have a limited amount of resources to do the calculations
on their end and each connection adds a load. That seemed to be what
consumed the resources. When cvsup7 was loaded (~20 users), a cvsup
required 20 minutes or so. When it was really lightly loaded, I could
cvsup 4-stable in 90 seconds.

> 
> >> Local box is a K6-2 450 acting merely as NAT gateway (and development box,
> >> of course, but during cvsup, make world doesn't make much sense ;-).
> > I can't imagine doing a build while you are cvsuping. That would be a
> > good way to get a mixture of code that doesn't work.
> 
> ACK.
> 
> > Everything seems to be running just fine. If there is something wrong,
> > I haven't noticed it.
> 
> I can only agree. But in the last months, IF make world and make
> buildkernel ran through, they worked. I never encountered a situation,
> where the build was successful but I ended up with a broken system...

The only thing I haven't been willing to do is an installworld (make
world or etc) before I build my kernel. When the buildworld failed for
me, it also failed at the same place for a number of other people. So
far, I haven't had a kernel fail to build.

Regards,

Kent

-- 
Kent Stewart
Richland, WA

mailto:kbstew99@hotmail.com
http://kstewart.urx.com/kstewart/index.html
FreeBSD News http://daily.daemonnews.org/

Bomber dropping fire retardant in front of Hanford Wild fire.
http://kstewart.urx.com/kstewart/bomber.jpg


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




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39780647.10DBCA85>