This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Slow gcc.gnu.org/sourceware.org?
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: sellcey at imgtec dot com, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:02:07 -0700
- Subject: Re: Slow gcc.gnu.org/sourceware.org?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAMe9rOrUmJb02b_09F4fehJ11JXYBbq3dGeuW7rWP88Vw8oX1w at mail dot gmail dot com> <1422375654 dot 3617 dot 21 dot camel at ubuntu-sellcey> <54C7BE21 dot 7080601 at redhat dot com> <CAGWvnynFnKvTvxSptnNRUs1A+B82HBDAArvstLLrpVP7MY-aZQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 01/27/15 14:22, David Edelsohn wrote:
There's minimal splitting of services. The tight integration between
the services makes that nontrivial. I recall some plans with more
splitting of services, but I think Frank & Chris burnt out with the last
upgrade before any of that could be done.
If a new system is procured, we need to perform the transition in a
more timely manner so that the new system is not idle for a year like
I thought that there was more than one system. Is it possible to
divide the work between multiple systems?
Word from Frank is that there's someone at the colo that will assess
what memory is needed and try to scrounge some up. If none can be
found, it'll be ordered. There are slots available for expansion.
It's a certainty we will need to upgrade that machine, the only question
is when. Given the amount of time an upgrade takes for the volunteers,
I'm really hoping the extra memory gives us enough headroom to get
through this year.
And yes, the year delay between delivery and setup of the new server was
bad, very bad.