Re: Security buildd for armel
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 06:48:18PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > Just to give an overview of current security updates blocked by arm: > (the hppa buildd is currently offline and thus ignored) -snip- > Also there are four updates for iceweasel, xulrunner, icedove > and iceape coming very soon, which take 12-15 hours each, while > the second slowest arch requires ca. 4-5 hours, imposing another > delay. I recently got sent by the kind folks from Marvell a MV78100 developer board[1], and the performance is quite promising. I tested building some known slow-building packages which will likely need security updates in lenny...: Package | Thecus | MV78100 | HPPA | MIPS linux-2.6 | 39h| 11h | 6h| 17h webkit| 17h| 5h | 3h| 4h qt4-x11 | 59h| 17h | 7h| 13h xulrunner | 14h| 4h | 1.5h | 3h thecus/hppa/mips timings are from build logs. Linux-2.6 build times are not really comparable, as different archs build different amounts of kernels. The developer board is ATX-sized mothboard with 2xsata, 2xgigE, 4x pciE and 2x pci, and finally DDR2 Memory slots with 1GB of RAM at the moment. Next, I'll try various packages with known anal testsuites (gcc-4.3, perl, python, glibc, apr, mysql, ltp, any other suggestions ) to see that the board is surely stable. [1] http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS6658204257.html -- "rm -rf" only sounds scary if you don't have backups signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Security buildd for armel
Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > Anybody come across a "Dual HDD NAS" rebadged from SVP. I'm assuming it > runs ARM internally? The web site says "Storlink's Centroid SL3316-G chipset." So yes, it's ARM, but not one supported by Debian (yet) I suspect. Colin -- Colin Tuckley | +44(0)1903 236872 | PGP/GnuPG Key Id Debian Developer | +44(0)7799 143369 | 0x1B3045CE APATHY ERROR: Don't bother striking any key. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Security buildd for armel
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 11:16:09PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >I don't know which kind of machine is planned for armel. > > toffee is an N2100, just the same as hedges AFAIK. > Anybody come across a "Dual HDD NAS" rebadged from SVP. I'm assuming it runs ARM internally? AndyC - who has just flashed a Slug using Martins latest daily image. > -- > Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL > PROTECTED] > Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Security buildd for armel
Moritz wrote: >On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 12:17:23PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote: >> Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: >>> Also there are four updates for iceweasel, xulrunner, icedove >>> and iceape coming very soon, which take 12-15 hours each, while >>> the second slowest arch requires ca. 4-5 hours, imposing another >>> delay. >>> >> >> It takes that long on hedges.billgatliff.com? Wow! >> >> Are you saying that _arm_ is lacking high-grunt hardware, or _arme[lb]_? > >The current arm buildd building etch and sarge is slow. > >I don't know which kind of machine is planned for armel. toffee is an N2100, just the same as hedges AFAIK. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] Support the Campaign for Audiovisual Free Expression: http://www.eff.org/cafe/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Security buildd for armel
* Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-02-08 23:30]: > toffee, the current security buildd is already a "Thecus N2100" (I > don't know if there are different models with varying speeds). There's only one model of the N2100. -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Security buildd for armel
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 12:17:23PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote: > Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: >> Also there are four updates for iceweasel, xulrunner, icedove >> and iceape coming very soon, which take 12-15 hours each, while >> the second slowest arch requires ca. 4-5 hours, imposing another >> delay. >> > > It takes that long on hedges.billgatliff.com? Wow! > > Are you saying that _arm_ is lacking high-grunt hardware, or _arme[lb]_? The current arm buildd building etch and sarge is slow. I don't know which kind of machine is planned for armel. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Security buildd for armel
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 07:39:50PM +, Martin Guy wrote: > 2008/2/8, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 06:48:18PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > > So, these Intel boards are _badly_ needed. Or maybe the buildd > > > can be run in qemu on a fast amd64 machine, I don't know if > > > that would work out. > > > > It would probably be slower than the existing buildd. > > It would. you lose about a factor of 12 in (32-bit) AMD MHz to ARM > MHz, and that's when it's running in a straight line; "configur"ing is > slower yet. > If it's just a question of money I don't mind buying the security team > an N2100, but mine is giving segfaults and bus errors on long builds > so you might like to consider something different. toffee, the current security buildd is already a "Thecus N2100" (I don't know if there are different models with varying speeds). Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Security buildd for armel
Kevin Price wrote: Hi Martin, Martin Guy schrieb: If it's just a question of money I don't mind buying the security team an N2100, but mine is giving segfaults and bus errors on long builds so you might like to consider something different. Are you saying that in general N2100 might be unreliable? Hedges is an N2100 that I outfitted with 512MB SDRAM. Anyone know how it's holding up? Top says it's not idling, but loaded 1.15 on average with 32MB free. Dmesg and the logs don't show anything ugly. b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Security buildd for armel
Hi Martin, Martin Guy schrieb: > If it's just a question of money I don't mind buying the security team > an N2100, but mine is giving segfaults and bus errors on long builds > so you might like to consider something different. Are you saying that in general N2100 might be unreliable? Kevin -- http://www.kevin-price.de/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Security buildd for armel
2008/2/8, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 06:48:18PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > So, these Intel boards are _badly_ needed. Or maybe the buildd > > can be run in qemu on a fast amd64 machine, I don't know if > > that would work out. > > It would probably be slower than the existing buildd. It would. you lose about a factor of 12 in (32-bit) AMD MHz to ARM MHz, and that's when it's running in a straight line; "configur"ing is slower yet. If it's just a question of money I don't mind buying the security team an N2100, but mine is giving segfaults and bus errors on long builds so you might like to consider something different. M -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Security buildd for armel
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: Also there are four updates for iceweasel, xulrunner, icedove and iceape coming very soon, which take 12-15 hours each, while the second slowest arch requires ca. 4-5 hours, imposing another delay. It takes that long on hedges.billgatliff.com? Wow! Are you saying that _arm_ is lacking high-grunt hardware, or _arme[lb]_? b.g. -- Bill Gatliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Security buildd for armel
On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 06:48:18PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > So, these Intel boards are _badly_ needed. Or maybe the buildd > can be run in qemu on a fast amd64 machine, I don't know if > that would work out. It would probably be slower than the existing buildd. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Security buildd for armel
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 01:05:29PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote: > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 11:01:01PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > > I have a question wrt armel qualification for Lenny: > > What type of machine is planned to be used as the > > security buildd? > > Generally buildd's are handled by infrastructure team, not by porters. Ok, but porters should be aware that their port has a problem. Hence this mail: Just to give an overview of current security updates blocked by arm: (the hppa buildd is currently offline and thus ignored) - sdl-image is ready and only missing arm builds - tk8.4 is ready except missing arm builds (well and m68k, but we'll get rid of it in two months) Also there are four updates for iceweasel, xulrunner, icedove and iceape coming very soon, which take 12-15 hours each, while the second slowest arch requires ca. 4-5 hours, imposing another delay. Plus, this is not only a delay by a few hours, but since we're all volunteers only having "slots" of free time, it amounts to much more: If arm builds were ready by now, I could release them now, while I won't have time otherwise before sunday. So, these Intel boards are _badly_ needed. Or maybe the buildd can be run in qemu on a fast amd64 machine, I don't know if that would work out. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Security buildd for armel
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 11:01:01PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > I have a question wrt armel qualification for Lenny: > What type of machine is planned to be used as the > security buildd? Generally buildd's are handled by infrastructure team, not by porters. > Martin Michlmayr is > working on getting a faster one and we wouldn't win anything > if we had a faster big-endian arm buildd and would still need > to wait for armel :-) Minor nitpick: "arm" port is not bigendian. See wiki.d.o/ArmEabiPort for differences in arm and armel port. I guess Martin is looking at iq81340mc or some other Intel IOP34x based board? Such hardware is be able to run armel port as well. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
