Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 04:35:03PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > (sorry for jumping in late here) > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 07:51:55AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 01:37 +0300, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > > > > > At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE > > > joined with indication that Open Build Service might be able to use > > > resources hosted by Marist. > > > > > > I wonder if it makes sense to reach out, and see if there are > > > resources available to use as porter boxes & build boxes. That way > > > Debian might be able to get such donated resource available on ongoing > > > basis and hopefully with some hw support. > > > > Marist already support Debian with an s390x buildd: > > > > ldapsearch -LLL -x -h db.debian.org -b ou=hosts,dc=debian,dc=org > > "(sponsor=*marist*)" > > https://db.debian.org/machines.cgi?host=zani > > > > Our other sponsors for s390 are www.iic.kit.edu and www.zivit.de: > > > > ldapsearch -LLL -x -h db.debian.org -b ou=hosts,dc=debian,dc=org > > "(architecture=s390*)" sponsor > > Given that we already seem to have three hardware sponsors for the s390x > port, is this really a concern? Our standard for buildd / porterboxen of a released architecture is: - multiple machines (N + 1, N sufficient to handle the buildd / porter load) - under warranty or post-warranty hardware support for the duration of their use as buildds / porterboxen including through the LTS timeframe - located in multiple geographic locations (EU and NA, ideally) - hosted by different hosting partners, each providing high availability (power, cooling, networking) and intelligent remote hands - under Debian control and/or ownership; available & affordable - redundant disks and power supplies - out-of-band service processor with power management or equivalent Not satisfying the fifth bullet is a minor concern in the case of s390x. > If we were to lose one sponsor, we'd still have two (and it would be > reasonable to try to ensure that we get a new sponsor to replace the one > lost). Indeed. The more redundnant sponsors, the less worrying is the concern. > How about making it a requirement that there is some level of redundancy > in sponsors for ports where hardware cannot be easily bought with Debian > money? That would cover the s390x port as well as any potential other > insanely-expensive-hardware port[1] that we might support now or in the > future. That is our requirement, effectively. The mild concern has not blocked the port from releasing. That said, the concern should be documented. > If push comes to shove, we could also talk to IBM. Pretty much all POWER > hardware we have was sponsored by IBM; it's not unreasonable to assume they > might be willing to also sponsor s390x time or hardware. -- Luca Filipozzi http://www.crowdrise.com/SupportDebian
Re: Bits from the release team (freeze time line)
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 07:14:25PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 03:28:04PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote: On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 02:19:07PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: However, using words like known-buggy mips* machines is just FUD against the mips*-ports, and plainly inacceptable, so please stop doing that. (For reference, there is no mipsel machine which has hardware bugs affecting daily operations. There are two mips machines which are pre-series and are not as stable as I wish, but as builddadm I was more occupied recently with arm* machines not stable then with mips machines not stable. This all doesn't mean I think nothing should be changed, but please do not FUD against mips* (or any other architecture).) builddadm does not keep the machines running, DSA does. ball is ancient, I agree that ball, rem and mayer are indeed ancient. That said despite their age, they are about twice faster as armel and armhf build daemons for building for example libreoffice or qt4-x11. Does they cause any problem from the administration point of view? The mipsel machines are working reliably but are probably not replacable if one dies. They could use more memory and it'd be helpful if they booted from SATA (so that we can source new disks if/when the current PATA disks die). corelli and gabrielli are unstable under load and lucatelli does need occasional reboots too, IIRC. I agree that corelli and gabrielli are unstable, though it's clearly not related with the load. I am not aware of any issue with lucatelli, do you have some more details? Of the four Movidis mips machines that I received at ubcece, one was dead on arrival, two have proven unreliable and only one is stable. All four were received with notes indicating that their eth0 was faulty, suggesting that they failed QA. The one that is stable is often so overloaded that we can't actually run any of our regular system administration tasks since the entire system is just thrashing (because there are 2 buildd instances running concurrently, and g++ with large parallelism just eats memory) I think that our core point is that we need the porter community (internal and external) to source production-quality buildd hardware with requisite out of band managment (console power, minimum). DSA is happy to organize the purchase of hardware, if we're pointed to an acceptable vendor. That said, if the external hardware community is interested in having Debian ported to their architecture, then we should not need to purchase hardware. Nor should we need to accept buggy pre-production hardware. So, our concern remains: buildd and porter boxen for the mips* and arm* need some attention from the porter community. Let's work together to get some newer, more capable, bug-free hardware lined up. Maybe even under warranty :) Thanks, Luca -- Luca Filipozzi http://www.crowdrise.com/SupportDebian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131228195121.ga8...@emyr.net
Re: DSA concerns for jessie architectures (mips*)
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 05:34:42PM +0800, Aron Xu wrote: On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Peter Palfrader wrote: If our existing eight-year old hardware is the only mips machines we can reasonably get then that doesn't bode well for mips. We don't think relying on the SWARMs (alone) is an option. Perhaps Cavium will interested in providing newer hardware now that there is a MIPS N64 GSoC project underway. They offered some decent hardware last year in association with such a port: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2012/02/msg1.html http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2013/Projects#MIPS_N32.2FN64_ABI_port http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2013/StudentApplications/EleanorChen I believe Cavium's David Daney is on debian-mips, we can talk to him to see if there is any possibility of making donation. It would be wonderful to refresh our mips environment as our current mips environment is not healthy. We gladly accept hardware donations but would appreciate if the donated hardware be equivalent to that available commercially. Of the four existing donated boxen that we operate at ubcece, one has never worked (fatally defective) and two are very unreliable. We also had to modify them to boot on power-up. Do the Cavium machines have any remote management features (similar to Sun ALOM, HP iLO, Dell DRAC) that allow access to a serial console and to power management? Alternatively, can they be configured to power on after a power loss so we can attach them to a remotely controlled power distribution unit? Do they boot from local storage? Any help you can provide in securing newer mips equipment is appreciated. We MUST refresh our mips environment if we wish to continue offering a mips port. As mentioned, we will need a number of machines to satisfy the various requirements (geographically distributed buildd machines, accessible porter machine(s), etc.). As for the GSoC project, the student seems to not get access to the hardware Cavium offered, nor the main mentor (Cc'ed), so there is no feedback about stability/other stuff about those hardware. Why were the GSoC students unable to obtain access to the hardware? Thanks, Luca -- Luca Filipozzi // Debian System Administration Team http://www.crowdrise.com/SupportDebian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130624140923.ga21...@emyr.net
Re: DSA concerns for jessie architectures (mips*)
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:36:20PM +0800, Aron Xu wrote: On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Luca Filipozzi lfili...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 05:34:42PM +0800, Aron Xu wrote: On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Peter Palfrader wrote: If our existing eight-year old hardware is the only mips machines we can reasonably get then that doesn't bode well for mips. We don't think relying on the SWARMs (alone) is an option. Perhaps Cavium will interested in providing newer hardware now that there is a MIPS N64 GSoC project underway. They offered some decent hardware last year in association with such a port: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2012/02/msg1.html http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2013/Projects#MIPS_N32.2FN64_ABI_port http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2013/StudentApplications/EleanorChen I believe Cavium's David Daney is on debian-mips, we can talk to him to see if there is any possibility of making donation. It would be wonderful to refresh our mips environment as our current mips environment is not healthy. We gladly accept hardware donations but would appreciate if the donated hardware be equivalent to that available commercially. Of the four existing donated boxen that we operate at ubcece, one has never worked (fatally defective) and two are very unreliable. We also had to modify them to boot on power-up. Do the Cavium machines have any remote management features (similar to Sun ALOM, HP iLO, Dell DRAC) that allow access to a serial console and to power management? Alternatively, can they be configured to power on after a power loss so we can attach them to a remotely controlled power distribution unit? Do they boot from local storage? Any help you can provide in securing newer mips equipment is appreciated. We MUST refresh our mips environment if we wish to continue offering a mips port. As mentioned, we will need a number of machines to satisfy the various requirements (geographically distributed buildd machines, accessible porter machine(s), etc.). As for the GSoC project, the student seems to not get access to the hardware Cavium offered, nor the main mentor (Cc'ed), so there is no feedback about stability/other stuff about those hardware. Why were the GSoC students unable to obtain access to the hardware? David once said he has prepared the machine, but we haven't got response from him when asking for shell access. That's unfortunate. Also, are you interested in asking Lemote for there Loongson 3A machines? Sure. My objective is to get functioning equipment so that the mips port is supported. I'm prepared to receive a mix of equipment from a number of vendors or just from one... as long the requirements (commercially available, warranty / support, out of band management, etc.) are met, I'm not partial one way or the other. The only challenge I see with the 3A machines is the comment about needing a lot of energy/time to get a working kernel... that would be a problem for us, obviously. Thanks, Luca -- Luca Filipozzi http://www.crowdrise.com/SupportDebian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130624153448.ga26...@emyr.net
Re: DSA concerns for jessie architectures (mips*)
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 02:11:19PM -0700, David Daney wrote: On 06/24/2013 07:36 AM, Aron Xu wrote: On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Luca Filipozzi lfili...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 05:34:42PM +0800, Aron Xu wrote: On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Peter Palfrader wrote: If our existing eight-year old hardware is the only mips machines we can reasonably get then that doesn't bode well for mips. We don't think relying on the SWARMs (alone) is an option. Perhaps Cavium will interested in providing newer hardware now that there is a MIPS N64 GSoC project underway. They offered some decent hardware last year in association with such a port: http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2012/02/msg1.html http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2013/Projects#MIPS_N32.2FN64_ABI_port http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2013/StudentApplications/EleanorChen I believe Cavium's David Daney is on debian-mips, we can talk to him to see if there is any possibility of making donation. It would be wonderful to refresh our mips environment as our current mips environment is not healthy. We gladly accept hardware donations but would appreciate if the donated hardware be equivalent to that available commercially. Of the four existing donated boxen that we operate at ubcece, one has never worked (fatally defective) and two are very unreliable. We also had to modify them to boot on power-up. Do the Cavium machines have any remote management features (similar to Sun ALOM, HP iLO, Dell DRAC) that allow access to a serial console and to power management? Alternatively, can they be configured to power on after a power loss so we can attach them to a remotely controlled power distribution unit? Do they boot from local storage? Any help you can provide in securing newer mips equipment is appreciated. We MUST refresh our mips environment if we wish to continue offering a mips port. As mentioned, we will need a number of machines to satisfy the various requirements (geographically distributed buildd machines, accessible porter machine(s), etc.). As for the GSoC project, the student seems to not get access to the hardware Cavium offered, nor the main mentor (Cc'ed), so there is no feedback about stability/other stuff about those hardware. Why were the GSoC students unable to obtain access to the hardware? David once said he has prepared the machine, but we haven't got response from him when asking for shell access. The good news: Debian GNU/Linux 6.0 ebh5600-dd ttyS0 ebh5600-dd login: root Password: Last login: Tue Jun 4 11:25:39 PDT 2013 on ttyS0 Linux ebh5600-dd 3.9.4 #18 SMP PREEMPT Tue Jun 4 11:18:44 PDT 2013 mips64 The programs included with the Debian GNU/Linux system are free software; the exact distribution terms for each program are described in the individual files in /usr/share/doc/*/copyright. Debian GNU/Linux comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by applicable law. root@ebh5600-dd:~# uptime 15:11:53 up 20 days, 3:45, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.05 root@ebh5600-dd:~# df -h FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda1 910G 26G 838G 3% / tmpfs 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /lib/init/rw udev 10M 24K 10M 1% /dev tmpfs 2.0G 0 2.0G 0% /dev/shm The slightly less good news: I am leaving on vacation until July 13, so I cannot get the thing on a public network until I get back. That's great! Happy to continue the conversation regarding these machines when you return. Have a good vacation. Also I don't recall any requests for shell access after the initial discussions about the system Ah! Seems like some miscommunication or misunderstanding. Thanks for correcting the record. Let's chat when you get back, Luca -- Luca Filipozzi http://www.crowdrise.com/SupportDebian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130624215058.ga...@emyr.net
