From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Feb 13 17:53:13 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from picnic.mat.net (picnic.mat.net [206.246.122.133]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3576E47DA for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 17:53:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (chuckr@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by picnic.mat.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA36717; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:50:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from chuckr@picnic.mat.net) Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 20:50:48 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey To: Richard Wackerbarth Cc: Gary Kline , freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /usr/ports/ too big? In-Reply-To: <00021319283201.06543@nomad.dataplex.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > On Sun, 13 Feb 2000, Gary Kline wrote: > > My take on this is that the more ideas we have, the better off > > the entire effort. I can't see a problem for at least 5 years > > --probably more--. So it would help (me at least) if you would > > detail outline the troubles you see down the road and what your > > solutions are. > The problems are now! As I have stated previously, CTM services are having to > be pruned; Mirrors have dropped the scope of their distribution or dropped out > entirely. I'm sure that other would-be participants have not come forward > because the they cannot dedicate the resources. 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include C & Java programming, FreeBSD, chuckr@picnic.mat.net | electronics, communications, and signal processing. New Year's Resolution: I will not sphroxify gullible people into looking up fictitious words in the dictionary. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message