On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 11:36:38PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> The original btrfs based one now has snapshots as far back as july 2023
> up to the present, and is currently 974GB. So, that looks like overall
> about 330GB growth per month, roughly.
neato!
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶
On 2023-10-12, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 04:59:33PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> On 2023-09-20, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> > On 19/09/23 at 13:52 -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> >> Snapshotting the archive(s) multiple times per day, today, tomorrow, and
>> >
On 2023-10-12, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2023-10-12, Chris Lamb wrote:
>>> In the meantime, I worked on a naive implementation of this, using
>>> debmirror and btrfs snapshots (zfs or xfs are other likely candidates
>>> for filesystem-level snapshots). It is working better than I expected!
>> [
On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 04:59:33PM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2023-09-20, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 19/09/23 at 13:52 -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> >> * Looking forward and backwards at snapshots
> >>
> >> I do think that a more complete snapshot approach is probably better
> >> t
On 2023-10-12, Chris Lamb wrote:
>> In the meantime, I worked on a naive implementation of this, using
>> debmirror and btrfs snapshots (zfs or xfs are other likely candidates
>> for filesystem-level snapshots). It is working better than I expected!
> […]
>> Currently weighing in at about 550GB, ea
Dear Vagrant,
> In the meantime, I worked on a naive implementation of this, using
> debmirror and btrfs snapshots (zfs or xfs are other likely candidates
> for filesystem-level snapshots). It is working better than I expected!
[…]
> Currently weighing in at about 550GB, each snapshot of the archi
On 2023-09-30, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2023-09-20, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> On 19/09/23 at 13:52 -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>>> * Looking forward and backwards at snapshots
>>>
>>> I do think that a more complete snapshot approach is probably better
>>> than package-specific snapshots,
On 2023-09-20, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 19/09/23 at 13:52 -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> * Looking forward and backwards at snapshots
>>
>> I do think that a more complete snapshot approach is probably better
>> than package-specific snapshots, and it might be worth doing
>> forward-looking
On 2023-09-19, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> * Some actual results!
>
> Testing only arch:all and arch:amd64 .buildinfos, I had decent luck with
> 2023/09/16:
>
> total buildinfos to check: 538
> attempted/building: 535
>
> unreproducible: 28 5 %
> reproducible: 461 85 %
> failed: 4
Hi,
On 19/09/23 at 13:52 -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> * Looking forward and backwards at snapshots
>
> I do think that a more complete snapshot approach is probably better
> than package-specific snapshots, and it might be worth doing
> forward-looking snapshots of ftp.debian.org (and securi
I experimented with verification builds building packages that were
recently built by the Debian buildd infrastrcture... relatively soon
after the .buildinfo files are made available, without relying on
snapshot.debian.org... with the goal of getting bit-for-bit identical
verification of newly adde
11 matches
Mail list logo
