CVSup port upgrade

[Frank Laszlo]

The load for cvsup13.us is pretty low. I am averaging only about 5 or so 
users. I can probably take on another top level host on the same system. 
Its a Dual 1.8Ghz Xeon with
2G of RAM, and Ultra160 SCSI disks w/ RAID5.  So its plenty beefy enough 
to handle it. Let me know if you are interested.

__________________________________________________
Frank Laszlo
System Administrator
The VonOstin Group
Email:  laszlof at tvog.net
WWW:    http://www.vonostingroup.com
Mobile: 248-863-7584



Ken Smith wrote:

>On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 13:47 -0800, John Polstra wrote:
>
>  
>
>>The fix for the bug is in the cvsupd server.  Lots of people
>>would appreciate it if you'd upgrade your cvsup installation to
>>"cvsup-16.1h_2" (or the cvsup-without-gui port with the same
>>revision).
>>    
>>
>
>The three machines I more or less watch over:
>
>	cvsup{5,8,18}.freebsd.org/cvsup{9,18}.us.freebsd.org
>	cvsup9.freebsd.org
>	cvsup10.{us.}freebsd.org
>
>should be all set.  I'll do cvsup-master some time soon, given its
>clients this bug shouldn't be biting any of them (mostly just mirror
>sites).
>
>That first one on the list could still use a little help...  It's what I
>point existing names at when a site disappears on us.  Of the names it's
>currently supporting we could use:
>
>  1) Two new sites in the USA to take over cvsup{9,18}.us.freebsd.org
>  2) Two sites anywhere in the world to take over 
>     cvsup{8,18}.freebsd.org.
>
>For (2) we would be looking for already existing sites that have a
>large-ish server set up for it but you feel it is currently severely
>under-utilized.  We would like the servers in the TLD to be established
>sites with a good track record, good network connectivity, and capable
>of handling a fairly significant load.  Based on observing the three
>machines I watch over it's best if the machine have 1Gb to 2Gb of RAM
>and, if possible, SCSI disks (SCSI disks is less important if it's got
>2Gb memory).  With that the machine can typically handle 15 to 25
>simultaneous clients and still remain "responsive" (meaning it doesn't
>take forever for each client to finish its updates).  With less than 1Gb
>RAM the servers tend to become *severely* I/O bound.
>
>If you'd like to volunteer for any of the above let me know.  :-)
>	
>  
>