geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <>
Subject Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Date Tue, 13 May 2008 17:43:41 GMT
If we want to run multiple images on a machine, then I'd up the 
requirements to 2 or 4 way AMD/Intel Quad core with a minimum of 8GB RAM 
for 4 cores and 16GB for 8 cores.  That way, you can have 2 or 3 images 
running through the buckets at full force, while having another image 
there for debugging test failures or for testing out new depend levels 
before dropping it into the build (like Tomcat 6.0.16...)

Two 2xQuad machines would be great (these come in 1U vs. 2U or more for 
4xQuad) and with 8GB RAM each and as much disk space as possible for 
storing multiple vm images per release (Geronimo 2.1.2 and 2.2.)


Joe Bohn wrote:
> 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!
> Joe

View raw message