From: Borut R. <bor...@gm...> - 2011-07-30 08:40:54
|
Hi, Dave McGuire sent me a mail that he is moving his network, including the sdcc snapshot build servers, to his new facility. The servers will be down for some time, probably a week or so. This means that sdcc snapshot build will not be done for FreeBSD/x86, NetBSD/i386, NetBSD/sparc64, OpenBSD/i386, Solaris SPARC, Solaris x86. P.S.: I don't know what is happening with the Mac OS X build machine: it is stil unaccessible. 2011-06-06 I sent a mail to Steven Borley, but still haven't received any answer. I'll send him an other mail now... P.P.S.: We can never thank the guys sharing their machines for running snapshot builds enough! Borut |
From: Borut R. <bor...@gm...> - 2011-07-30 09:26:47
|
Hi, Steven already replied me that there is a chance for the Mac OS X build machine to be back this weekend. Let hope for the best... Borut On 07/30/2011 10:40 AM, Borut Ražem wrote: > Hi, > > Dave McGuire sent me a mail that he is moving his network, including > the sdcc snapshot build servers, to his new facility. The servers will > be down for some time, probably a week or so. > > This means that sdcc snapshot build will not be done for FreeBSD/x86, > NetBSD/i386, NetBSD/sparc64, OpenBSD/i386, Solaris SPARC, Solaris x86. > > P.S.: I don't know what is happening with the Mac OS X build machine: > it is stil unaccessible. 2011-06-06 I sent a mail to Steven Borley, > but still haven't received any answer. I'll send him an other mail now... > > P.P.S.: We can never thank the guys sharing their machines for running > snapshot builds enough! > > Borut |
From: Borut R. <bor...@gm...> - 2011-07-30 16:26:16
|
And now the great news: Mac OS X snapshot build machine is back! Zillion thanks to Steven! Borut On 07/30/2011 11:26 AM, Borut Ražem wrote: > Hi, > > Steven already replied me that there is a chance for the Mac OS X > build machine to be back this weekend. > Let hope for the best... > > Borut > > > On 07/30/2011 10:40 AM, Borut Ražem wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Dave McGuire sent me a mail that he is moving his network, including >> the sdcc snapshot build servers, to his new facility. The servers >> will be down for some time, probably a week or so. >> >> This means that sdcc snapshot build will not be done for FreeBSD/x86, >> NetBSD/i386, NetBSD/sparc64, OpenBSD/i386, Solaris SPARC, Solaris x86. >> >> P.S.: I don't know what is happening with the Mac OS X build machine: >> it is stil unaccessible. 2011-06-06 I sent a mail to Steven Borley, >> but still haven't received any answer. I'll send him an other mail >> now... >> >> P.P.S.: We can never thank the guys sharing their machines for >> running snapshot builds enough! >> >> Borut > |
From: Borut R. <bor...@gm...> - 2011-07-31 15:20:35
|
A lot of offers, these days! I'm thinking about moving the DCF server to an other machine which fulfills the flowing criteria as much as possible: - it has a lot of network bandwidth, since it is acting as a mediator between snapshot build machines and sourceforge File Release System: it accepts the builds from build servers and transfers them to SF FRS, so it is the most critical element regarding the bandwidth. - physical vicinity to the SF servers, at least on the same continent ;-) - a separate machine (or VM) from the snapshot build machine The current DCF has a limited bandwidth: 7KB per second (rsync --bwlimit=7) and the same machine also runs all Intel based builds, as I already mentioned. An other goal I would like to achieve is to have a backup DCF server, which we could activate if the main goes out of business. So, the situation could be: - Dave's machine as the primary DFC server - Erik's cf-x86 machine as the backup DFC and amd64 (in the future also mingw64) build machine - roelof's machine as i386 and mingw32 build machine P.S.: FYI, Steven Borley offered me a Mac OS X i386 machine, which we will use for running regression tests. Universal Mac OS X builds including ppc and i386 binaries are already made on Mac OS X ppc machine. The new machine will be probably available in few months. > no Windows here. Are you living in a cave??? :-D Borut On 07/31/2011 03:28 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: > On Jul 31, 2011, at 5:00 AM, Borut Razem<bor...@gm...> wrote: >> But we could use an other Linux x86 or x86_64 machine as a snapshot >> build server. Currently all Intel based builds (Linux i386, Linux amd64 >> and Windows 32) are done on the same machine, which takes a lot of CPU >> and real time during compilation / regression testing and a lot of >> network bandwidth during the file transfer. Oh yes, the same machine is >> also acting as a DCF server... So we could divide this tasks on several >> machines.... > Hey Borut, I can handle these on my network along with the other snapshot build machines once my racks are moved. > > Not the Windows one though, no Windows here. > > -Dave > |
From: Borut R. <bor...@gm...> - 2011-07-31 17:29:32
|
The fact is that the big majority of sdcc users is running Windows: see snapshot builds download statistics at https://sourceforge.net/projects/sdcc/files/snapshot_builds/stats/os. If I wold be vicious I would say: "Remove the Windows from their heads and let the sun shine on their minds", but I'm not, so I never wrote that! ;-) P.S. for Windows users: don't even try to take this as an offence: I'm just in mood to play with words. I'm still using Windows at my job, so I'm joking on my account too. Borut On 07/31/2011 05:28 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: > On 7/31/11 11:20 AM, Borut Ražem wrote: >> > no Windows here. >> Are you living in a cave??? :-D > > Nope...I never moved INTO a cave. ;) I've never run Windows; I > don't have the patience for it, it's garbage. I've always had a UNIX > workstation of one sort or another on my desk. VAX (several), then > DECstation, then 68K Sun, then SPARC-based Suns (several), then SGI > (several), now an OS X machine (now being phased out) and Sun. > > I think I had *one* of those machines crash *once*, for > all-day/everyday use spanning 25 years...hence the "patience" thing. ;) > > -Dave > |
From: Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...> - 2011-07-31 19:18:47
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 31.07.2011 19:29, schrieb Borut Ražem: > The fact is that the big majority of sdcc users is running Windows: > see snapshot builds download statistics at > https://sourceforge.net/projects/sdcc/files/snapshot_builds/stats/os. > > If I wold be vicious I would say: "Remove the Windows from their heads > and let the sun shine on their minds", but I'm not, so I never wrote > that! ;-) > > P.S. for Windows users: don't even try to take this as an offence: I'm > just in mood to play with words. I'm still using Windows at my job, so > I'm joking on my account too. > > Borut I think you're misinterpretng that page. I rarely use Windows, far less often than once a month. Nevertheless just today I started it, and downloaded a Windows snapshot to have a look at some Windows-specific problem a user reported. On the other hand I don't download snapshots for other systems. GNU/Linux users often find sdcc in their distribution, so they see no need to download the latest snapshot unless they want the most recent version. And if they want a recent version, the effort to compile it themselves is far less than on Windows: GNU/Linux users are used to download a tarball or from svn, use configure, make, make install; their distribution provides them with everything they need to build sdcc. It would be far more effort for a Windows user to build sdcc, since they would have to obtain and install all the necessary tools first. Do we have numbers for tarball downloads and svn checkouts / updates? Philipp -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk41qo0ACgkQbtUV+xsoLppmxgCfauZiqzAbNTpsWB6xzPKyGmiu 6XcAoJCeiGkQv+9KZY+RpT8dHH4tPSNy =Rwgu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Erik P. <epe...@iv...> - 2011-08-01 00:12:10
|
On Sun, 31 Jul 2011, Borut wrote: > A lot of offers, these days! > > I'm thinking about moving the DCF server to an other machine which > fulfills the flowing criteria as much as possible: > - it has a lot of network bandwidth, since it is acting as a mediator > between snapshot build machines and sourceforge File Release System: it > accepts the builds from build servers and transfers them to SF FRS, so > it is the most critical element regarding the bandwidth. > - physical vicinity to the SF servers, at least on the same continent ;-) > - a separate machine (or VM) from the snapshot build machine > > The current DCF has a limited bandwidth: 7KB per second (rsync > --bwlimit=7) and the same machine also runs all Intel based builds, as I > already mentioned. An other goal I would like to achieve is to have a > backup DCF server, which we could activate if the main goes out of business. I had to add the bandwidth limitation to rsync when we started generating so many daily snapshots; the problem was mainly the uploads to SourceForge. The connection to my ISP is asymmetric DSL, which has a much smaller outgoing bandwidth than incomming. The outgoing bandwidth was saturating several times a day, which in turn indirectly choked the incoming bandwidth since acknowledgment packets were being dropped. Then my wife would complain and (jokingly) ask if I needed to reboot the Internet. The current rsync setting is not at all tuned and probably could be raised (doubled, maybe tripled) if that would be helpful without being a problem for me. That being said, I also certainly do not mind if someone else's computer with a better network connection has the DCF mediator role. Erik |
From: Borut R. <bor...@gm...> - 2011-08-02 17:06:53
|
Hi Erik, On 08/01/2011 01:54 AM, Erik Petrich wrote: > The current rsync setting is not at all tuned and probably could be raised > (doubled, maybe tripled) if that would be helpful without being a problem > for me. That being said, I also certainly do not mind if someone else's > computer with a better network connection has the DCF mediator role. can I try to double the bandwidth limit from 7KiB/s to 14KiB/s? Borut |
From: Erik P. <epe...@iv...> - 2011-08-02 18:43:21
|
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Borut Razem wrote: > Hi Erik, > > On 08/01/2011 01:54 AM, Erik Petrich wrote: >> The current rsync setting is not at all tuned and probably could be raised >> (doubled, maybe tripled) if that would be helpful without being a problem >> for me. That being said, I also certainly do not mind if someone else's >> computer with a better network connection has the DCF mediator role. > > can I try to double the bandwidth limit from 7KiB/s to 14KiB/s? Let's be bold and try 21KiB/s. Assuming I haven't miscalculated, this would be a bit under half the available outgoing bandwidth (384 Kib/s)and so still safely away from saturation. I'll be sure to say something if it doesn't work out as expected. :-) Erik |
From: Borut R. <bor...@gm...> - 2011-08-02 19:10:45
|
Done. Let wait and see... Thanks, Borut On 08/02/2011 08:43 PM, Erik Petrich wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Borut Razem wrote: > >> Hi Erik, >> >> On 08/01/2011 01:54 AM, Erik Petrich wrote: >>> The current rsync setting is not at all tuned and probably could be >>> raised >>> (doubled, maybe tripled) if that would be helpful without being a >>> problem >>> for me. That being said, I also certainly do not mind if someone else's >>> computer with a better network connection has the DCF mediator role. >> >> can I try to double the bandwidth limit from 7KiB/s to 14KiB/s? > > Let's be bold and try 21KiB/s. Assuming I haven't miscalculated, this > would be a bit under half the available outgoing bandwidth (384 > Kib/s)and so still safely away from saturation. I'll be sure to say > something if it doesn't work out as expected. :-) > > Erik > |