Re: Buildd redundancy (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver...)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 01:44:37PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:23:30PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 02:12:50PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: TTBOMK, even m68k has one buildd admin per buildd False. There are some of us who currently don't maintain more than one buildd host, but with the exception of Roman, we all have (or have had) more than one buildd host under our responsability. I meant that there were buildds to which only one admin had access. Ah, that way. Most buildds have two or three admins that can log and handle things. TTBOMK, there is no single person that has access to /all/ m68k buildd hosts, but that isn't really needed. It could be the case that there are hosts to which only one person has access, yes (I'm not quite sure about cts' machines); but I would consider that a bug. ISTR seeing comments from m68k admins in the recent past that they would have to check with Stephen Marenka about missing packages, for instance; but maybe this was longer ago than I realized. We don't generally touch eachother's hosts for non-urgent matters, but that's just a matter of courtesy. Also, it could be that the particular person you were talking to did not have access to the buildd host in question; it doesn't necessarily mean only Stephen had access. As a recent example, to fix the XFree86 -11 mess, Adam Conrad and (to a lesser extent) I logged in to most buildd hosts and fixed the chroots; after we were done, there were only two of them left to go, IIRC. -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Buildd redundancy (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver...)
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 03:17:33AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: - at least two buildd administrators This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc. This is at odds with what I've heard from some buildd maintainers that having multiple buildd maintainers makes it hard to avoid stepping on one another's feet, That is the opinion of the !m68k buildd admins. However, as we have proven by now, that isn't really a problem; all it requires is some level of coordination, which is easily achieved by having a buildd maintainers' mailinglist (or just eachother's email addresses, if the team is sufficiently small). Indeed, the m68k buildd team currently consists of seven people -- Adam Conrad, Christian Steigies, Matthias Ulrichs, Michael Schmitz, Roman Hodek, Stephen Marenka, and myself -- yet we don't usually step on one another's feet. It is, however, true that both approaches to buildd maintenance have their advantages and disadvantages; e.g., one of the disadvantages to our approach is that rare but still recurring problems aren't easily identified. I still think the advantages to our approach (there's someone to take over temporarily if I go to $far_away for three weeks, to name just one) by far outweighs the disadvantages, however. I should note that I would be happy to help set up a team for one or more of the currently singly-maintained architectures, if the people that currently maintain it are willing to either join the team or give up maintenance of that architecture; I'm quite sure it would prove to be a workable alternative. -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Buildd redundancy (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver...)
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 02:12:50PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: TTBOMK, even m68k has one buildd admin per buildd False. There are some of us who currently don't maintain more than one buildd host, but with the exception of Roman, we all have (or have had) more than one buildd host under our responsability. -- EARTH smog | bricks AIR -- mud -- FIRE soda water | tequila WATER -- with thanks to fortune signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Buildd redundancy (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver...)
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 06:23:30PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 02:12:50PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: TTBOMK, even m68k has one buildd admin per buildd False. There are some of us who currently don't maintain more than one buildd host, but with the exception of Roman, we all have (or have had) more than one buildd host under our responsability. I meant that there were buildds to which only one admin had access. ISTR seeing comments from m68k admins in the recent past that they would have to check with Stephen Marenka about missing packages, for instance; but maybe this was longer ago than I realized. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Buildd redundancy (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver...)
* Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 12:35]: On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:20:34AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote: - at least two buildd administrators This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc. This is at odds with what I've heard from some buildd maintainers that having multiple buildd maintainers makes it hard to avoid stepping on one another's feet, so I wouldn't want to set a requirement like this without further discussion. Actually, there was some discussion about that in Vancouver :) It boils down to more or less having at least two people to be able to maintain any of the buildds, so that if the primary buildd admin goes on vacation / is ill / ..., that doesn't put this buildd completly off-line. In fact, this has already happened in the past, without anybody except the buildd admins noticing it. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Buildd redundancy (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver...)
* Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: * Steve Langasek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050319 12:35]: On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:20:34AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote: - at least two buildd administrators This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc. This is at odds with what I've heard from some buildd maintainers that having multiple buildd maintainers makes it hard to avoid stepping on one another's feet, so I wouldn't want to set a requirement like this without further discussion. Actually, there was some discussion about that in Vancouver :) It boils down to more or less having at least two people to be able to maintain any of the buildds, so that if the primary buildd admin goes on vacation / is ill / ..., that doesn't put this buildd completly off-line. In fact, this has already happened in the past, without anybody except the buildd admins noticing it. It strikes me as rather silly that Debian can't come up with a way for two people to be able to work with a single buildd, either at the same time or not. It would probably require *some* talking/coordination between them but tools could be written to help with that a great deal. Stephen signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Buildd redundancy (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver...)
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:20:34AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages If we are going to require redundancy, I think we should do it better and add: - systems located in at least two different facilities (different cities and backbones if at all possible) This allows for redundancy in case of fire, flood, earthquake etc. Yes, this was my expectation with this requirement, and I've confirmed that others at the meeting had the same thing in mind -- geographic separation is part of the point of having buildd redundancy. - at least two buildd administrators This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc. This is at odds with what I've heard from some buildd maintainers that having multiple buildd maintainers makes it hard to avoid stepping on one another's feet, so I wouldn't want to set a requirement like this without further discussion. Having multiple *local* admins, OTOH, follows from having geographic separation of the machines. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Buildd redundancy (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver...)
Hi, Steve Langasek wrote:
This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc.
This is at odds with what I've heard from some buildd maintainers that
having multiple buildd maintainers makes it hard to avoid stepping on one
another's feet,
I assume that that's a problem if the buildd admins are prone to not
looking where they're going.
TTBOMK, m68k has no such problem.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Buildd redundancy (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver...)
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:37:05PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote: Hi, Steve Langasek wrote: This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc. This is at odds with what I've heard from some buildd maintainers that having multiple buildd maintainers makes it hard to avoid stepping on one another's feet, I assume that that's a problem if the buildd admins are prone to not looking where they're going. TTBOMK, m68k has no such problem. TTBOMK, even m68k has one buildd admin per buildd -- the most they generalley have in terms of buildd admin redundancy is that if the admin for a machine that has built a certain package is unavailable, another admin can waste cycles by re-building the package elsewhere. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Buildd redundancy (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver...)
Hi, Steve Langasek wrote:
TTBOMK, m68k has no such problem.
TTBOMK, even m68k has one buildd admin per buildd -- the most they
generalley have in terms of buildd admin redundancy is that if the admin
for a machine that has built a certain package is unavailable, another
admin can waste cycles by re-building the package elsewhere.
Umm, no. If I vanish, one of the other two people who can log onto my
buildds can mail the logs to themselves and sign them.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Buildd redundancy (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver...)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - the release architecture must have N+1 buildds where N is the number required to keep up with the volume of uploaded packages If we are going to require redundancy, I think we should do it better and add: - at least two buildd administrators - systems located in at least two different facilities (different cities and backbones if at all possible) This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc. This allows for redundancy in case of fire, flood, earthquake etc. -- Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.blars.org/blars.html With Microsoft, failure is not an option. It is a standard feature. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Buildd redundancy (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver...)
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:20:34AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote: If we are going to require redundancy, I think we should do it better and add: - at least two buildd administrators *nod* - systems located in at least two different facilities (different cities and backbones if at all possible) This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc. This allows for redundancy in case of fire, flood, earthquake etc. For example both public debian m68k machines are located on the same window sill at the Univ. of Duesseldorf. IMHO not the best place to position important infrastructure. -- Ciao... // Ingo \X/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Buildd redundancy (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver...)
Ingo Juergensmann wrote: On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:20:34AM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote: If we are going to require redundancy, I think we should do it better and add: - at least two buildd administrators *nod* - systems located in at least two different facilities (different cities and backbones if at all possible) This allows the buildd administrator to take vacations, etc. This allows for redundancy in case of fire, flood, earthquake etc. For example both public debian m68k machines are located on the same window sill at the Univ. of Duesseldorf. IMHO not the best place to position important infrastructure. I agree. A sturdy table, or even a shelf or server rack would be a much better place ;-) Just out of curiousity (and speaking as a non-DD that has been trying to follow the flood mails over the last few days), why is it that I seem to remember numerous offers of infrastructure support to Debian in the way of hosting and machines but there still appears to be a dearth of resources? -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://familiasanchez.net/~sanchezr signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Buildd redundancy (was Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver...)
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:37:13PM -0500, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: For example both public debian m68k machines are located on the same window sill at the Univ. of Duesseldorf. IMHO not the best place to position important infrastructure. I agree. A sturdy table, or even a shelf or server rack would be a much better place ;-) Indeed... and I believe that some problems of the machines originate from that and I fear that the temperature differences there might cause breakage of the hardware... But that's just a personal fear and assumption... Just out of curiousity (and speaking as a non-DD that has been trying to follow the flood mails over the last few days), why is it that I seem to remember numerous offers of infrastructure support to Debian in the way of hosting and machines but there still appears to be a dearth of resources? I could explain that to you, but then again I would be accused of ranting... ;-) -- Ciao... // Ingo \X/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
