From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dann frazier Subject: Re: debian hppa Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 10:18:10 -0600 Message-ID: <20110707161810.GC12243@dannf.org> References: <20110527213516.GH21744@dannf.org> <20110527233738.0B95D4FCB@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> <20110601021049.GB3984@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Cc: John David Anglin , carlos@systemhalted.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org To: Thibaut VARENE Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-ID: List-Id: linux-parisc.vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 07, 2011 at 05:49:36PM +0200, Thibaut VARENE wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:20 AM, John David Anglin > wrote: > > Hi Thibaut, > > > > On 13-Jun-11, at 6:19 PM, Thibaut VARENE wrote: > > > >>> I would say your other machines need updating even if the process= is > >>> somewhat rocky as that's the only way a broadbased release can be= tested. > >> > >> Well I can assign one machine (the a500, being easy to reboot/fix = as > >> it is) to testing kernels, but for a stable kernel suitable for th= e > >> machines I'm e.g. assigning to the GCC Compile Farm[0], what would= be > >> a good SMP kernel version to choose? I'm looking for the same leve= l of > >> hassle-freeness as 2.6.22.19 since these machines are under relati= vely > >> heavy load and I cannot afford to tend to their care on a daily ba= sis > >> ;-) > > > > Sorry for the delay in responding. =A0I think assigning the a500 to= the GCC > > farm > > provides good visibility. =A0For GCC, the kernel version doesn't ma= tter much. > > =A0The > > main issue is stability. >=20 > OK, so I suppose it's fine to stick with 2.6.22.19? I thought there > were issues with un-implemented syscalls and such, so I don't really > know... >=20 > > I was wondering if the rp3440 in the ESIEE might be assigned to run= ning > > debian > > buildd. =A0I believe that the current set of known kernel patches w= ill make > > this > > machine reasonably stable under medium load. =A0Carlos recently fou= nd a big > > bug in the kernel futex code. =A0In any case, I recently successful= ly built > > many > > unstable packages on my rp3440. > > > > I would be willing to help getting this going. >=20 > I have no problem with this, the only "active" user of the rp3440 is > Aur=E9lien, so I suppose it wouldn't be a problem. Yet, my understand= ing > is that the rp3440 is extremely slow at building anything (much slowe= r > than my other machines, it seems) because of the cache flush issues. > AIUI that's why Debian stuck to J6700 for buildds, because those > machines were a lot faster. I don't think speed was really a concern - it was more hardware availability and some hand-wavy belief that these machines would be more stable. Honestly, the most reliable build machine I've used is my C3700. I don't recall ever having any build issues with that. Anything it gives up in speed is definitely outweighed by having to e.g. retry gcc 5 times before succeeding. By the end of the port, I'd normally handbuild new gcc uploads here to avoid thrashing on the real buildds. If given the option, I'd recommend 3 of those boxes for a buildd ring. > Other than that, the rp3440 currently runs unstable with 2.6.22.19, s= o > I suppose a complete reinstall would be in order, and I'm not sure I > have time to deal with that just yet. I'd be happy to provide remote > access to the machine though, if someone steps up. FWIW, the only > machine I have left running lenny is a J5000, 2x440MHz PA8500, > previously used as an autobuilder for debian-multimedia.org. >=20 > HTH, > T-Bone >=20 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc"= in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html