m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Feb 20, Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-...@web.de> wrote:
>
>> For network based boots, specifically high performance cluster, the size
>> can make a real difference. When you turn the cluster on it is not just
>> one system downloading an extra meg but 100+ nodes. That largely
>> increases the network collisions, errors and dropped packages. Something
>> that can even make systems fail to boot.
> Goswin, meet mtftp. mtftp, meet Goswin.
mtftp meet switch. Switch, hey switch, why did you crash?
> Also: if the network fabric of your cluster cannot handle an extra 100
> MB of boot downloads then it looks badly broken to me.
>
> Do you have any better argument or at least better data? If nobody does,
> then I agree with Michael than klibc should be dropped (this way we
> *would* save space...).
There must have been some arguments for it. Someone went through all the
trouble of chaning initramfs-tools to use klibc. The size was just one
example.
The only problem I see is that the change is stuck half way. It either
needs to go forward to completly klibc or back to just eglibc.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87tytauae3....@frosties.localdomain
