FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-29-2008, 02:07 PM
Mike McGrath
 
Default Change request

The *real* freeze has started.

I'd like to build a different box for the secondary.fedoraproject.org
bits. Initial space requirements were off, I'd like to move the bits to a
host in PHX. This will require kicking a new host with enough storage.
Possibly wiping the old /mnt/koji share (I'll wait for approval from jesse
on that)

Risk: low

This request relates to the F9 release because secondary arch needs a
place to host the ia64 bits.

Can I get a +1?

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
 
Old 04-29-2008, 02:21 PM
Mike McGrath
 
Default Change request

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Bill Nottingham wrote:

> Mike McGrath (mmcgrath@redhat.com) said:
> >
> > The *real* freeze has started.
> >
> > I'd like to build a different box for the secondary.fedoraproject.org
> > bits. Initial space requirements were off, I'd like to move the bits to a
> > host in PHX. This will require kicking a new host with enough storage.
> > Possibly wiping the old /mnt/koji share (I'll wait for approval from jesse
> > on that)
> >
> > Risk: low
> >
> > This request relates to the F9 release because secondary arch needs a
> > place to host the ia64 bits.
> >
> > Can I get a +1?
>
> Assuming we're not going to run out of space once we have 2/3/4 secondary
> arches, +1.
>

Actually I have no space requirements for anything other then ia64 right
now so I cannot say whether we will or won't run out of space for the
other arches.

-Mike

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
 
Old 04-29-2008, 02:21 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default Change request

Mike McGrath (mmcgrath@redhat.com) said:
>
> The *real* freeze has started.
>
> I'd like to build a different box for the secondary.fedoraproject.org
> bits. Initial space requirements were off, I'd like to move the bits to a
> host in PHX. This will require kicking a new host with enough storage.
> Possibly wiping the old /mnt/koji share (I'll wait for approval from jesse
> on that)
>
> Risk: low
>
> This request relates to the F9 release because secondary arch needs a
> place to host the ia64 bits.
>
> Can I get a +1?

Assuming we're not going to run out of space once we have 2/3/4 secondary
arches, +1.

Bill

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
 
Old 04-29-2008, 02:28 PM
Mike McGrath
 
Default Change request

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Bill Nottingham wrote:

> Mike McGrath (mmcgrath@redhat.com) said:
> > > Assuming we're not going to run out of space once we have 2/3/4 secondary
> > > arches, +1.
> >
> > Actually I have no space requirements for anything other then ia64 right
> > now so I cannot say whether we will or won't run out of space for the
> > other arches.
>
> Do we want to spec out for this build (ia64 requirements) x 3? Do we
> have that sort of space available?
>

Not sure if we do or not. Dennis, is ia64 the benchmark for secondary
archs? Can we just multiply it * 3? Also what are the updates
requirements / release for these archs?

-Mike

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
 
Old 04-29-2008, 02:29 PM
Bill Nottingham
 
Default Change request

Mike McGrath (mmcgrath@redhat.com) said:
> > Assuming we're not going to run out of space once we have 2/3/4 secondary
> > arches, +1.
>
> Actually I have no space requirements for anything other then ia64 right
> now so I cannot say whether we will or won't run out of space for the
> other arches.

Do we want to spec out for this build (ia64 requirements) x 3? Do we
have that sort of space available?

Bill

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
 
Old 04-29-2008, 07:03 PM
Dennis Gilmore
 
Default Change request

On Tuesday 29 April 2008, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Mike McGrath (mmcgrath@redhat.com) said:
> > > > Assuming we're not going to run out of space once we have 2/3/4
> > > > secondary arches, +1.
> > >
> > > Actually I have no space requirements for anything other then ia64
> > > right now so I cannot say whether we will or won't run out of space for
> > > the other arches.
> >
> > Do we want to spec out for this build (ia64 requirements) x 3? Do we
> > have that sort of space available?
>
> Not sure if we do or not. Dennis, is ia64 the benchmark for secondary
> archs? Can we just multiply it * 3? Also what are the updates
> requirements / release for these archs?
+1 from me

as far as requirements sparc/sparc64 will be ~ same as ppc/ppc64 ia64,
alpha, arm should be close to i386 s390 im not sure but im guessing
similar to sparc unless they only build for s390x and drop support for s390

though alpha, arm, and s390 lag behind sparc which is behind ia64.


Dennis

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
 
Old 04-29-2008, 07:49 PM
Mike McGrath
 
Default Change request

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Dennis Gilmore wrote:

> On Tuesday 29 April 2008, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > Mike McGrath (mmcgrath@redhat.com) said:
> > > > > Assuming we're not going to run out of space once we have 2/3/4
> > > > > secondary arches, +1.
> > > >
> > > > Actually I have no space requirements for anything other then ia64
> > > > right now so I cannot say whether we will or won't run out of space for
> > > > the other arches.
> > >
> > > Do we want to spec out for this build (ia64 requirements) x 3? Do we
> > > have that sort of space available?
> >
> > Not sure if we do or not. Dennis, is ia64 the benchmark for secondary
> > archs? Can we just multiply it * 3? Also what are the updates
> > requirements / release for these archs?
> +1 from me
>
> as far as requirements sparc/sparc64 will be ~ same as ppc/ppc64 ia64,
> alpha, arm should be close to i386 s390 im not sure but im guessing
> similar to sparc unless they only build for s390x and drop support for s390
>
> though alpha, arm, and s390 lag behind sparc which is behind ia64.
>

So the actual number we should be using to reserve space for an arch for a
release is..? I really really really need someone to find that number and
commit to it and its essential that the number be correct. We have done a
horrid job of guessing how much space we need for things and its caused a
lot of needless headaches.

It's not easy to guess how much space we need. There's a lot of parts
involved, especially when you start talking about isos and updates. So
lets not guess. Lets do some research and get that number.

-Mike

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
 
Old 10-26-2008, 03:55 AM
Nigel Jones
 
Default Change Request

Hi Folks,

Quick change request:

Change two IPs in the zabbix manifests from .250 to .200 (I got RH's out
IP incorrect... dammit).

Impact: a few kb to a select few hosts to get the new config out & one
very annoyed New Zealander

Due to the way I did the manifest it shouldn't require new files to go
out to _EVERY_ host (yay for foresight).

Dunka in advance...

- Nigel
--
Nigel Jones <dev@nigelj.com>

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
 
Old 10-26-2008, 03:57 AM
Mike McGrath
 
Default Change Request

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Nigel Jones wrote:

> Hi Folks,
>
> Quick change request:
>
> Change two IPs in the zabbix manifests from .250 to .200 (I got RH's out
> IP incorrect... dammit).
>
> Impact: a few kb to a select few hosts to get the new config out & one
> very annoyed New Zealander
>
> Due to the way I did the manifest it shouldn't require new files to go
> out to _EVERY_ host (yay for foresight).
>
> Dunka in advance...
>

+1 from me.

-Mike

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
 
Old 10-26-2008, 03:59 AM
Ricky Zhou
 
Default Change Request

On 2008-10-26 05:55:31 PM, Nigel Jones wrote:
> Quick change request:
>
> Change two IPs in the zabbix manifests from .250 to .200 (I got RH's out
> IP incorrect... dammit).
+1

Thanks,
Ricky
_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:07 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org