On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 04:24:35PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Practically, buildd admins can notice a longer-than-usual queue and throw > > hardware at the problem, and that seems to work well enough, and we could > > reduce the rate of package inflow through various means, but the problem > > still remains -- the queue prioritisation *can* lead to starvation. I'm not > > advocating that it be on the top of anyone's todo list to fix it, because we > > have relatively effective workarounds, but it's not healthy to say the > > problem does not exist, either. > > What are these "relatively effective workarounds"?
Not being a buildd admin, I have no idea as to the specifics, but I infer the existence of these workarounds due to the fact that, on the whole, the build queues don't appear to suffer from hideous starvation problems. > I recall recently hearing that the buildd admins don't want extra > machines. So what then? Presumably that was "we don't want extra buildds administered by random people who we have no control over", a policy which has been discussed to death before. Nowhere have I seen a buildd admin say "we're happy not having enough machines to keep up with demand". - Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
