geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bohn <>
Subject Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Date Tue, 13 May 2008 15:42:13 GMT
Kevan Miller wrote:
> On May 12, 2008, at 6:05 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>> All,
>> We have discussed in the past the idea of getting some ASF hosted 
>> machines that we can use to run and share TCK test results for 
>> Geronimo.  With more folks coming on board running TCK tests this 
>> seems to be getting more and more important.  It would also be great 
>> if we could get some of the automation working again on these 
>> dedicated machines ... but I think we need to secure some machines 
>> first.  For now, I think we should just get something we can share for 
>> Geronimo with an eye toward possible sharing across other ASF projects 
>> in the future.
>> Some recent discussions with infra indicate that the Geronimo PMC 
>> needs to submit a proposal for these machines if we ever hope to get 
>> some. The proposal must meet the criteria listed below in addition to 
>> some more obvious things such as the number and specifications of the 
>> machines. The Geronimo PMC must approve and then make the request to 
>> ASF infra but we can discuss the requirements here and formulate the 
>> proposal.  Please jump in if you have opinions on the specs and number 
>> of machines.  Keep in mind that we need to keep this request 
>> reasonable if we have a hope of getting it accepted.  I also imagine 
>> that we'll have to volunteer some people to help manage these machines 
>> .... volunteers?
>> I'll start to put together a proposal with your input and when we 
>> think it is complete enough I'll forward it to the PMC for further 
>> action.
>> The sooner we can get this proposal pulled together the better off 
>> we'll be.
>> Does anybody have a sample proposal for something similar from infra? 
>> I'm not sure how detailed this proposal must be.
> Joe,
> This would be fantastic. Thanks for starting this discussion. Our GBuild 
> hosting infrastructure is no more. And we're overly reliant on the 
> machines running in Matt's basement.
> IIRC, you've been keeping 2 machines pretty busy running CTS tests. So, 
> at an absolute minimum, I think we'd need 2 beefy multi-core machines. 
> Preferably, we'd have 3-4. With a stable hardware and hosting 
> environment, I think we could get an automated test system up and 
> running reliably. If we can use multiple VM images to concurrently run 
> tests, we'd be able to make better use of the hardware (with faster 
> turn-around of tests).
> --kevan

Right I was running 2 very beefy machines manually in a dedicated 
fashion with no automation.  If we want something to share, multiple VM 
images, and multiple concurrent tests then it would need to be a bit 
more robust than what I was using.  So I was planning to ask for 4 
multi-core machines (need to do some research on CPU capacity) and 3-4 
GB RAM each.  I'll include that we could get by with just 2 machines for 
a time while we work out the automation/sharing issues.

I sent a note asking for some clarification on what they are looking for 
in a proposal and an example (if available).  I'd like for whatever we 
request to be in line with most of their other systems in terms of OS 
level/version, VM software, etc...  so that we can avoid the "one off" 
issue they list while still getting a system that can support our 
testing needs.

Thanks for the feedback!

View raw message