Re: kernel.bkbits.net off the air

[Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org>]

Hi Larry

On Wednesday 19 Nov 2003 12:49 am, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> Because the translation process is hugely CPU intensive.  It takes
> something like 6 hours to do the 2.5 tree on 2.2Ghz Athlon with a gig
> of ram.  And it uses every bit of that ram, that's my desktop machine
> and _everything_ is paged out when I come in in the morning.

But once you've done it, incoming changesets are then added incrementally, 
right? You don't just convert the tree once a day?

So you'd just need to maintain two copies of the cvs tree, one which currently 
available for coherent transmission to lobobk clients, and the other which 
can be updated, with a means of swapping them

> I agreed to the BK2CVS stuff as a way of ensuring that people had the
> data in a format that they could use without BK and was useful.  I'm
> willing to do that for each main tree of each major project (i.e., if
> XFree86 or something like that moved to BK we'd agree to do the CVS
> conversion so that there was no lockin).

But, as I described in my previous post, it also has at least one useful 
commercial application.

> But doing it for every branch of every tree is nuts unless you are
> donating a 16 way with a zillion gigs of ram.  And a zillion disk
> arms, this thrashes the heck out of the disk.

The 2.5 tree is <300Mb, so just stick 4Gb in your machine, the bk and cvs tree 
in tmpfs and, well, throw the HD away ;)

> > And when you've finished that, I'd like a moon rocket please. GPL, of
> > course ;)

This was in anticipation of somebody calling me a whinging pom. And sure 
enough... (And yes, my antipodean mates, we are going to _stuff_ you on 
saturday!)

> Yeah, and I'd like all the open source developers of the world to
> acknowledge that I'm a good guy and I'm trying to help.  In writing, of
> course ;)

I think everyone who works for a living knows that already :)