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
