On 11 Mar 2016 4:51 pm, "Kevin Fenzi" <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:22:28 +0000
> dennis@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > From: Dennis Gilmore <ausil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dennis Gilmore <ausil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > inventory/builders | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/inventory/builders b/inventory/builders
> > index 50dc58d..105a2cd 100644
> > --- a/inventory/builders
> > +++ b/inventory/builders
> > @@ -241,6 +241,9 @@ arm04-builder00.arm.fedoraproject.org
> > arm04-builder01.arm.fedoraproject.org
> > arm02-builder21.arm.fedoraproject.org
> > arm02-builder23.arm.fedoraproject.org
> > +aarch64-02a.arm.fedoraproject.org
> > +buildvm-ppc64-01.ppc.fedoraproject.org
> > +buildvm-ppc64le-01.ppc.fedoraproject.org
> >
> > [builders:children]
> > buildhw
>
> Seems fine, but note that this means that they need the rw nfs mount
> right?
>
> On the others we do this with:
>
> $ cat inventory/host_vars/arm02-builder21.arm.fedoraproject.org
> ---
> #
> # We need to mount koji storage rw here so run_root can work.
> # The rest of the group can be ro, it's only builders in the
> # compose channel that need a rw mount
>
> nfs_mount_opts: "rw,hard,bg,intr,noatime,nodev,nosuid,nfsvers=3"
>
> There might be a few more places we special case the runroot ones...
>
> Anyhow, with that caveat, +1
They should already be RW (pretty sure I already tested that bit), they are on IPs with RW access
+1 from me
> kevin
>
> _______________________________________________
> infrastructure mailing list
> infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
