geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Continuous TCK Testing
Date Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:46:26 GMT

On Oct 10, 2008, at 11:29 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:

>
> On Oct 10, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2008, at 11:56 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 8, 2008, at 4:31 PM, Jason Warner wrote:
>>>
>>>> We had some suggestions earlier for some alternate means of  
>>>> implementing this (Hudson, Conitnuum, etc...).  Now that we've  
>>>> had Jason Dillon provide an overview of what we had in place  
>>>> before, does anyone have thoughts on what we should go with?  I'm  
>>>> thinking we should stick with the AHP based solution.  It will  
>>>> need to be updated most likely, but it's been tried and tested  
>>>> and shown to meet our needs.  I'm wondering, though, why we  
>>>> stopped using it before.  Was there a specific issue we're going  
>>>> to have to deal with again?
>>>
>>> IIRC, the overwhelming reason we stopped using it before was  
>>> because of hosting issues -- spotty networking, hardware failures,  
>>> poor colo support, etc. We shouldn't have any of these problems,  
>>> now. If we do run into problems, they should now be fixable. I  
>>> have no reason to favor Hudson/Continuum over AHP. So, if we can  
>>> get AHP running easily, I'm all for it. There's only one potential  
>>> issue, that I'm aware of.
>>>
>>> We previously had an Open Source License issued for our use of  
>>> Anthill. Here's some of the old discussion -- http://www.nabble.com/Geronimo-build-automation-status-(longish)-tt7649902.html#a7649902
>>>
>>> Although the board was aware of our usage of AntHill, since we  
>>> weren't running AntHill on ASF hardware, I'm not sure the license  
>>> was fully vetted by Infra. I don't see any issues, but I'll want  
>>> to run this by Infra.
>>>
>>> Jason D, will the existing license cover the version of AntHill  
>>> that we'll want to use? I'll run the license by Infra and will  
>>> also describe the issue for review by the Board, in our quarterly  
>>> report.

Heh. Oops. Just noticed that I sent the following to myself and not  
the dev list. I hate when I do that...

>
> One more thing... from emails on infrastructure@apache.org looks  
> like Infra is cool with us running Anthill on selene and phoebe.
>
> BTW, am planning on installing monitoring software over the weekend  
> on selene and phoebe. The board is interested in monitoring our  
> usage...


Also, we now have a new AntHill license for our use. I've placed the  
license in ~kevan/License2.txt on phoebe and selene. This license  
should only be used for Apache use. So, should not be placed in a  
public location (e.g.  our public svn tree).

Regarding monitoring software -- I haven't been able to get it to work  
yet. vmstat/iostat don't work, unless you run on every virtual  
machine. 'xm top' gathers data on all domains, however, doesn't make  
the data easy to tuck away in a log file/available to snmp... Advice  
welcome...

--kevan

Mime
View raw message