From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 107D9E00982; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, * medium trust * [216.31.210.62 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Greylist: delayed 65 seconds by postgrey-1.32 at yocto-www; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:26:44 PDT Received: from mail-gw1-out.broadcom.com (mail-gw1-out.broadcom.com [216.31.210.62]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD8D0E0086D for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:26:44 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,588,1427785200"; d="scan'208,217";a="67226215" Received: from irvexchcas06.broadcom.com (HELO IRVEXCHCAS06.corp.ad.broadcom.com) ([10.9.208.53]) by mail-gw1-out.broadcom.com with ESMTP; 10 Jun 2015 13:15:22 -0700 Received: from IRVEXCHMB14.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([fe80::6184:5cb6:5350:4823]) by IRVEXCHCAS06.corp.ad.broadcom.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:25:37 -0700 From: "Luke (Lucas) Starrett" To: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" Thread-Topic: multi-user shared state Thread-Index: AdCjsj4Gf+U1h+5sSX6IrfQwWZErZw== Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:25:36 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.9.208.64] MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: multi-user shared state X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:26:48 -0000 Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_DB59870584238C45879465F0A2E5C3F17B01E6IRVEXCHMB14corpad_" --_000_DB59870584238C45879465F0A2E5C3F17B01E6IRVEXCHMB14corpad_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I'm trying to understand the feasibility of shared-state across multiple us= ers in a development environment. Does anyone have first-hand experience w= ith this? Am I asking for trouble? If this is expected to work, a secondary question would be whether or not s= hared-state on a NFS mounted path works. Any thoughts? Thanks, Luke Starrett --_000_DB59870584238C45879465F0A2E5C3F17B01E6IRVEXCHMB14corpad_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

I’m trying to understand the feasibility of sh= ared-state across multiple users in a development environment. Does a= nyone have first-hand experience with this? Am I asking for trouble?<= o:p>

If this is expected to work, a secondary question wo= uld be whether or not shared-state on a NFS mounted path works. Any t= houghts?

Thanks,

Luke Starrett

--_000_DB59870584238C45879465F0A2E5C3F17B01E6IRVEXCHMB14corpad_-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 91C95E00982; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:55:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, high * trust * [134.134.136.65 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AE92E0086D for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Jun 2015 12:55:15 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,589,1427785200"; d="scan'208,217";a="506284993" Received: from alimon-thinkpad-w540.zpn.intel.com (HELO [10.219.4.173]) ([10.219.4.173]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Jun 2015 12:55:14 -0700 Message-ID: <55789683.2040704@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:56:51 -0500 From: =?windows-1252?Q?An=EDbal_Lim=F3n?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Luke (Lucas) Starrett" , "yocto@yoctoproject.org" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: multi-user shared state X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 19:55:22 -0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030905060004010909000405" --------------030905060004010909000405 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Luke, Comments below, Best regards, alimon [1] https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/ [2] http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-autobuilder/ On 10/06/15 14:25, Luke (Lucas) Starrett wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to understand the feasibility of shared-state across multiple users in a development environment. Does anyone have first-hand experience with this? Am I asking for trouble? It is feasible some the sstates can be generated using Yocto Autobuilder [1] [2] that support setup of various builder machines one as controller/worker and workers, things to consider are: * Network bandwidth: Shared states works good on LAN environments. * Yocto Autobuilder and Developers Distro's: Shared states generates packages that are dependent on the distro like native ones, for use 100% of shared state is needed to use the same distro. > > If this is expected to work, a secondary question would be whether or not shared-state on a NFS mounted path works. Any thoughts? The common setup consist in a one machine that acts as a controller/worker and shared the sstate and downloads to the workers using NFS for Developer usage it's better to share with HTTP to avoid problems with the filesystem permissions. > > Thanks, > > Luke Starrett > > > > --------------030905060004010909000405 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Luke,

Comments below,

Best regards,
alimon

[1] https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/
[2] http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/yocto-autobuilder/

On 10/06/15 14:25, Luke (Lucas) Starrett wrote:

Hi,

I'm trying to understand the feasibility of shared-state across multiple users in a development environment.  Does anyone have first-hand experience with this?  Am I asking for trouble?

It is feasible some the sstates can be generated using Yocto Autobuilder [1] [2] that support setup of various builder machines one as controller/worker and workers, things to
consider are:

Network bandwidth: Shared states works good on LAN environments.
Yocto Autobuilder and Developers Distro's: Shared states generates packages that are dependent on the distro like native ones, for use 100% of shared state is needed to use the same distro.


If this is expected to work, a secondary question would be whether or not shared-state on a NFS mounted path works.  Any thoughts?

The common setup consist in a one machine that acts as a controller/worker and shared the sstate and downloads to the workers using NFS for Developer usage it's better to share with
HTTP to avoid problems with the filesystem permissions.


Thanks,

Luke Starrett

--------------030905060004010909000405-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 8C7DAE00B71; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:28:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_PASS,WEIRD_PORT autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [80.91.229.3 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record * 0.0 WEIRD_PORT URI: Uses non-standard port number for HTTP * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] Received: from plane.gmane.org (plane.gmane.org [80.91.229.3]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39500E00AC8 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 07:28:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Z33Sp-00036v-W6 for yocto@yoctoproject.org; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:28:16 +0200 Received: from ppp-2-86-141-63.home.otenet.gr ([2.86.141.63]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:28:15 +0200 Received: from gmane by ppp-2-86-141-63.home.otenet.gr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:28:15 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: yocto@yoctoproject.org From: Robert Berger Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:28:09 +0300 Message-ID: <55799AF9.1060607@reliableembeddedsystems.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-2-86-141-63.home.otenet.gr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: multi-user shared state X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:28:46 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi, On 06/10/2015 10:25 PM, Luke (Lucas) Starrett wrote: > Hi, > > > > I’m trying to understand the feasibility of shared-state across multiple > users in a development environment. Does anyone have first-hand > experience with this? Am I asking for trouble? Have a look here [1] 3.2.1.2. Core System Development, and [2] I did have troubles in the past. When I built e.g. for 2 different boards both using the same compiler and the same sstate funny things happened when 2 machines tried to work on the same package at the same time. But everything should be fine as long as things work sequentially. Don't know if the sstate mechanism works concurrently in the meantime. > > > > If this is expected to work, a secondary question would be whether or > not shared-state on a NFS mounted path works. Any thoughts? shared state works (and as a matter of fact everything on an nfs share would work) > > > > Thanks, > > > > Luke Starrett > > [1] http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/1.8/dev-manual/dev-manual.html [2] http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/1.8/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#shared-state-cache > > > > -- > Regards, Robert ..."Teaching of beginners should be done by a master, not by a hack." - Deming My public pgp key is available,at: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x90320BF1