Mailing-List: contact general-help@gump.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Gump code and data" <general@gump.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
To: general@gump.apache.org
Subject: Re: Comparing vmgump with brutus, offloading services to loki...
References: <4277F4ED.7040109@leosimons.com>
From: Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 15:04:26 +0200
In-Reply-To: <4277F4ED.7040109@leosimons.com> (Leo Simons's message of "Wed,
 04 May 2005 00:02:21 +0200")
Message-ID: <m3wtqfp2g5.fsf@bodewig.bost.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through
 Obscurity, linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Wed, 04 May 2005, Leo Simons <mail@leosimons.com> wrote:

> A preliminary conclusion seems to be that gump-on-vmware performance
> is quite acceptable.

Cool.

> clearly, disk space management on brutus could be a little tighter,

Are you "publishing" jars in the VmGump instance?  They can eat a good
bit of disk space.

> And the recommended setup is something like this:
> 
>   * dual 3+ GHz CPU
>   * 4GB ram
>   * 100GB of fast disk (I'm guessing esp. access time matters)
>   * internal gigabit connection to cvs and svn server
> 
> on which you could comfortably run all our profiles on top of vmware
> and have some room for growth.

More disk wouldn't hurt either (I want Mustang nightly and IKVM.NET
builds ;-).

> Gump on Dual G5 setup
> =====================
> Gump3 anyone? :-)

Maqybe you want to play on moof first?  It is available right now.

> What do you guys think? Comments?

All sounds fine.  I agree with your list of Gump requirements as well
as where we might be able to scale down.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@gump.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@gump.apache.org