You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> on 2008/05/13 00:05:25 UTC
ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
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.
Thanks,
Joe
ASF infra checklist:
---
This provides a list of requirements and doctrines for web applications
that wish to be deployed on the Apache Infrastrcture. It is intended to
help address many of the recurring issues we see with deployment and
maintainence of applications.
Definition of 'system': Any web application or site which will receive
traffic from public users in any manner.
Definition of 'critical systems': Any web application or site which runs
under www.apache.org, or is expected to receive a significant portion of
traffic.
1) All systems must be generally secure and robust. In cases of failure,
they should not damage the entire machine.
2) All systems must provide reliable backups, at least once a day, with
preference to incremental, real time or <1 hour snapshots.
3) All systems must be maintainable by multiple active members of the
infrastructure team.
4) All systems must come with a 'runbook' describing what to do in event
of failures, reboots, etc. (If someone who has root needs to reboot the
box, what do they need to pay attention to?)
5) All systems must provide at least minimal monitoring via Nagios.
6) All systems must be restorable and relocatable to other machines
without significant pain.
7) All systems must have some kind of critical mass. In general we do
not want to host one offs of any system.
8) All system configuration files must be checked into Subversion.
9) All system source must either be checked into Subversion, be at a
well-known public location, or is provided by the base OS. (Hosting
binary-only webapps is a non-starter.)
10) All systems, prior to consideration of deployment, must provide a
detailed performance impact analysis (bandwidth and CPU). How are
techniques like HTTP caching used? Lack of HTTP caching was MoinMoin's
initial PITA.
11) All systems must have clearly articulated, defined, and recorded
dependencies.
12) All critical systems must be replicated across multiple machines,
with preference to cross-atlantic replication.
13) All systems must have single command operations to start, restart
and stop the system. Support for init scripts used by the base
operating system is preferred.
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> I did a quick search on the web for what it would take to build two
> systems. Here is the initial SWAG.
>
> SuperMicro CSE-825S2-R700LPV U2 Rackmountable eATX Case (700W PSU,
> Silver) $750 x 2 = $1500
> Sony DRU190A 20X DVD Rewritable Drive - 20x
> DVD±R $40 x 2 = 80
> Dynatron H53G 2U CPU Heatsink For Intel
> Xeon $50 x 4 = 200
> Memory - 2GB DDR2 667 ECC Fully
> Buffered $80 x 16 = 1280
> Disk - Western Digital Caviar RE2 WD7500AYYS 750GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache
> SATA $200 x 4 = 800
>
> Here is a SWAG at what we'd need to put two 8-core 16GB systems with
> logical mirroring 750GB storage. The cost is $3860 from the above. I'd
> round up to $4000 for tax, shipping, etc.
>
> We might be able to buy other systems for a lower price point. I've
> rounded to be conservative on cost. I would Run Linux with Xen and 4
> VM's per server which would give us 8 server instances to work from.
>
> Thoughts welcome.
>
>
> Motherboard Information
> http://shopper.cnet.com/cases/supermicro-cse-825s2-r700lpv/4014-3030_9-31954268.html
>
>
> Heatsink Information
> http://www.netfreez.com/?p=catalog&mode=search&search_in=tags&searchstr=xeon
>
>
> DVD Information
> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3569869&CatId=482
>
>
> Memory
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820208200
>
> Disk
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136144
Matt,
This is great detail. Thanks for pulling it together. I think it would
be great if we could build and donate those machines ... but from some
discussions with infra it seems they would prefer to order machines
directly. That way they can call in for support as the owners of the
machines and they can ensure that they meet all of their requirements
for power supplies, rack dimensions, rails, etc ... plus have some
general standards in the configuration. Anything we can do to make
their life easier is a plus.
I will use your detailed analysis for the request though, which I plan
to have in a proposal on this list very soon.
Thanks,
Joe
Re: Webapp-based Tuscany/Geronimo integration in Tuscany SCA Java 1.2 release
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
Is there interest in tighter integration between Tuscany/Geronimo? Would
> there be interest in generating a Tuscany Plugin for Geronimo? Running
> Tuscany as a service?
>
> --kevan
>
>
Could you explain a bit more about what it means to "run Tuscany as a
service"? Are there any examples or doc on that I could look at?
...ant
Re: Webapp-based Tuscany/Geronimo integration in Tuscany SCA Java 1.2 release
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
> Is there interest in tighter integration between Tuscany/Geronimo? Would
> there be interest in generating a Tuscany Plugin for Geronimo? Running
> Tuscany as a service?
>
> --kevan
>
Yes! I think that would be really useful. Right now we've some ongoing work
getting Tomcat and the new Tuscany distributed domain stuff working together
so having Geronimo also able to do something similar would be ideal. We've
also a Google Summer of Code student working on better Tuscany/SCA
management in the Geronimo admin console so that would be helped by this as
well.
...ant
Re: Webapp-based Tuscany/Geronimo integration in Tuscany SCA Java 1.2 release
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 4:45 PM, Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
> Is there interest in tighter integration between Tuscany/Geronimo? Would
> there be interest in generating a Tuscany Plugin for Geronimo? Running
> Tuscany as a service?
>
> --kevan
>
Yes! I think that would be really useful. Right now we've some ongoing work
getting Tomcat and the new Tuscany distributed domain stuff working together
so having Geronimo also able to do something similar would be ideal. We've
also a Google Summer of Code student working on better Tuscany/SCA
management in the Geronimo admin console so that would be helped by this as
well.
...ant
Re: Webapp-based Tuscany/Geronimo integration in Tuscany SCA Java 1.2 release
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi, Kevan.
Thank you for pointing out the "Re" issue.
As for the next steps, we have some initial thoughts captured at http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/TUSCANYWIKI/Tuscany+Geronimo+Integration+Next+Steps. Any ideas and contributions are very welcome!
Raymond
From: Kevan Miller
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 8:45 AM
To: Geronimo Dev
Cc: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Subject: Re: Webapp-based Tuscany/Geronimo integration in Tuscany SCA Java 1.2 release
Hi Raymond,
One minor netiquette comment... Looks like you used a "Reply To" button when generating your note (then changed the subject line). Some mail readers will still group your email in the previous email thread (one example is Mac OS X Mail). This can cause emails to be lost/cause confusion. So, it's best to avoid...
More below.
On May 15, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
In the recently released Tuscany SCA Java 1.2 [1], we produce a whitepaper [2] to describe webapp-based Tuscany/Geronimo integration. We would like to share the information here and hope it can trigger more interests from both Geronimo and Tuscany community to bring more values into these areas collaboratively.
Thanks!
Developing SOA based solutions can be very complex and expensive. Apache Tuscany provides a lightweight infrastructure which enables users to easily implement SOA based solutions or to use
their existing assets and align them with SOA principles which would support a business model that can extend and expand as business needs change.
Apache Tuscany implements SCA specifications that is being standardized at OASIS. Tuscany provides the capabilities to construct, assemble and deploy composite applications using SCA.
This white paper explains how Tuscany integrates with Apache Geronimo, a fully certified Java EE 5 application server runtime, to provide added value to users wanting to develop SOA solutions using Geronimo as a platform. The added values include:
* Extensibility of component implementation technologies
* Extensibility of transport and protocol abstractions
* A notion of cross-application/cross-network assembly and configuration
* Integration of SCA with existing or new EJB based applications
The following are a set of usage scenarios that both JEE and SCA developers could be interested in.
* Access SCA composites from Java EE components using JEE programming model
* Access session beans from SCA service components
* Expose SCA services as session beans or web services
* Include Session Beans in a single SCA composition by providing an SCA implementation for session beans.
* Inject SCA service references to web components to enable Web 2.0
* Expose enterprise applications into an SCA domain
* Use recursive SCA assembly in enterprise applications
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany/sca-java-releases.html
[2] http://cwiki.apache.org/TUSCANYWIKI/tuscany-web-application-based-integration-with-geronimo.html
Is there interest in tighter integration between Tuscany/Geronimo? Would there be interest in generating a Tuscany Plugin for Geronimo? Running Tuscany as a service?
--kevan
Re: Webapp-based Tuscany/Geronimo integration in Tuscany SCA Java 1.2 release
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
Hi Raymond,
One minor netiquette comment... Looks like you used a "Reply To"
button when generating your note (then changed the subject line). Some
mail readers will still group your email in the previous email thread
(one example is Mac OS X Mail). This can cause emails to be lost/cause
confusion. So, it's best to avoid...
More below.
On May 15, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the recently released Tuscany SCA Java 1.2 [1], we produce a
> whitepaper [2] to describe webapp-based Tuscany/Geronimo
> integration. We would like to share the information here and hope it
> can trigger more interests from both Geronimo and Tuscany community
> to bring more values into these areas collaboratively.
Thanks!
>
>
> Developing SOA based solutions can be very complex and expensive.
> Apache Tuscany provides a lightweight infrastructure which enables
> users to easily implement SOA based solutions or to use
> their existing assets and align them with SOA principles which would
> support a business model that can extend and expand as business
> needs change.
>
> Apache Tuscany implements SCA specifications that is being
> standardized at OASIS. Tuscany provides the capabilities to
> construct, assemble and deploy composite applications using SCA.
>
> This white paper explains how Tuscany integrates with Apache
> Geronimo, a fully certified Java EE 5 application server runtime, to
> provide added value to users wanting to develop SOA solutions using
> Geronimo as a platform. The added values include:
>
> * Extensibility of component implementation technologies
> * Extensibility of transport and protocol abstractions
> * A notion of cross-application/cross-network assembly and
> configuration
> * Integration of SCA with existing or new EJB based applications
>
> The following are a set of usage scenarios that both JEE and SCA
> developers could be interested in.
>
> * Access SCA composites from Java EE components using JEE
> programming model
> * Access session beans from SCA service components
> * Expose SCA services as session beans or web services
> * Include Session Beans in a single SCA composition by providing an
> SCA implementation for session beans.
> * Inject SCA service references to web components to enable Web 2.0
> * Expose enterprise applications into an SCA domain
> * Use recursive SCA assembly in enterprise applications
>
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany/sca-java-releases.html
> [2] http://cwiki.apache.org/TUSCANYWIKI/tuscany-web-application-based-integration-with-geronimo.html
Is there interest in tighter integration between Tuscany/Geronimo?
Would there be interest in generating a Tuscany Plugin for Geronimo?
Running Tuscany as a service?
--kevan
Re: Webapp-based Tuscany/Geronimo integration in Tuscany SCA Java 1.2 release
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
Hi Raymond,
One minor netiquette comment... Looks like you used a "Reply To"
button when generating your note (then changed the subject line). Some
mail readers will still group your email in the previous email thread
(one example is Mac OS X Mail). This can cause emails to be lost/cause
confusion. So, it's best to avoid...
More below.
On May 15, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the recently released Tuscany SCA Java 1.2 [1], we produce a
> whitepaper [2] to describe webapp-based Tuscany/Geronimo
> integration. We would like to share the information here and hope it
> can trigger more interests from both Geronimo and Tuscany community
> to bring more values into these areas collaboratively.
Thanks!
>
>
> Developing SOA based solutions can be very complex and expensive.
> Apache Tuscany provides a lightweight infrastructure which enables
> users to easily implement SOA based solutions or to use
> their existing assets and align them with SOA principles which would
> support a business model that can extend and expand as business
> needs change.
>
> Apache Tuscany implements SCA specifications that is being
> standardized at OASIS. Tuscany provides the capabilities to
> construct, assemble and deploy composite applications using SCA.
>
> This white paper explains how Tuscany integrates with Apache
> Geronimo, a fully certified Java EE 5 application server runtime, to
> provide added value to users wanting to develop SOA solutions using
> Geronimo as a platform. The added values include:
>
> * Extensibility of component implementation technologies
> * Extensibility of transport and protocol abstractions
> * A notion of cross-application/cross-network assembly and
> configuration
> * Integration of SCA with existing or new EJB based applications
>
> The following are a set of usage scenarios that both JEE and SCA
> developers could be interested in.
>
> * Access SCA composites from Java EE components using JEE
> programming model
> * Access session beans from SCA service components
> * Expose SCA services as session beans or web services
> * Include Session Beans in a single SCA composition by providing an
> SCA implementation for session beans.
> * Inject SCA service references to web components to enable Web 2.0
> * Expose enterprise applications into an SCA domain
> * Use recursive SCA assembly in enterprise applications
>
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany/sca-java-releases.html
> [2] http://cwiki.apache.org/TUSCANYWIKI/tuscany-web-application-based-integration-with-geronimo.html
Is there interest in tighter integration between Tuscany/Geronimo?
Would there be interest in generating a Tuscany Plugin for Geronimo?
Running Tuscany as a service?
--kevan
Webapp-based Tuscany/Geronimo integration in Tuscany SCA Java 1.2 release
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
In the recently released Tuscany SCA Java 1.2 [1], we produce a whitepaper
[2] to describe webapp-based Tuscany/Geronimo integration. We would like to
share the information here and hope it can trigger more interests from both
Geronimo and Tuscany community to bring more values into these areas
collaboratively.
Developing SOA based solutions can be very complex and expensive. Apache
Tuscany provides a lightweight infrastructure which enables users to easily
implement SOA based solutions or to use
their existing assets and align them with SOA principles which would support
a business model that can extend and expand as business needs change.
Apache Tuscany implements SCA specifications that is being standardized at
OASIS. Tuscany provides the capabilities to construct, assemble and deploy
composite applications using SCA.
This white paper explains how Tuscany integrates with Apache Geronimo, a
fully certified Java EE 5 application server runtime, to provide added value
to users wanting to develop SOA solutions using Geronimo as a platform. The
added values include:
* Extensibility of component implementation technologies
* Extensibility of transport and protocol abstractions
* A notion of cross-application/cross-network assembly and configuration
* Integration of SCA with existing or new EJB based applications
The following are a set of usage scenarios that both JEE and SCA developers
could be interested in.
* Access SCA composites from Java EE components using JEE programming model
* Access session beans from SCA service components
* Expose SCA services as session beans or web services
* Include Session Beans in a single SCA composition by providing an SCA
implementation for session beans.
* Inject SCA service references to web components to enable Web 2.0
* Expose enterprise applications into an SCA domain
* Use recursive SCA assembly in enterprise applications
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany/sca-java-releases.html
[2]
http://cwiki.apache.org/TUSCANYWIKI/tuscany-web-application-based-integration-with-geronimo.html
Thanks,
Raymond
Webapp-based Tuscany/Geronimo integration in Tuscany SCA Java 1.2 release
Posted by Raymond Feng <en...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
In the recently released Tuscany SCA Java 1.2 [1], we produce a whitepaper
[2] to describe webapp-based Tuscany/Geronimo integration. We would like to
share the information here and hope it can trigger more interests from both
Geronimo and Tuscany community to bring more values into these areas
collaboratively.
Developing SOA based solutions can be very complex and expensive. Apache
Tuscany provides a lightweight infrastructure which enables users to easily
implement SOA based solutions or to use
their existing assets and align them with SOA principles which would support
a business model that can extend and expand as business needs change.
Apache Tuscany implements SCA specifications that is being standardized at
OASIS. Tuscany provides the capabilities to construct, assemble and deploy
composite applications using SCA.
This white paper explains how Tuscany integrates with Apache Geronimo, a
fully certified Java EE 5 application server runtime, to provide added value
to users wanting to develop SOA solutions using Geronimo as a platform. The
added values include:
* Extensibility of component implementation technologies
* Extensibility of transport and protocol abstractions
* A notion of cross-application/cross-network assembly and configuration
* Integration of SCA with existing or new EJB based applications
The following are a set of usage scenarios that both JEE and SCA developers
could be interested in.
* Access SCA composites from Java EE components using JEE programming model
* Access session beans from SCA service components
* Expose SCA services as session beans or web services
* Include Session Beans in a single SCA composition by providing an SCA
implementation for session beans.
* Inject SCA service references to web components to enable Web 2.0
* Expose enterprise applications into an SCA domain
* Use recursive SCA assembly in enterprise applications
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/tuscany/sca-java-releases.html
[2]
http://cwiki.apache.org/TUSCANYWIKI/tuscany-web-application-based-integration-with-geronimo.html
Thanks,
Raymond
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On May 15, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> I did a quick search on the web for what it would take to build two
> systems. Here is the initial SWAG.
>
> SuperMicro CSE-825S2-R700LPV U2 Rackmountable eATX Case (700W PSU,
> Silver) $750 x 2 = $1500
> Sony DRU190A 20X DVD Rewritable Drive - 20x DVD±R
> $40 x 2 = 80
> Dynatron H53G 2U CPU Heatsink For Intel Xeon $50 x 4
> = 200
> Memory - 2GB DDR2 667 ECC Fully Buffered $80 x 16 = 1280
> Disk - Western Digital Caviar RE2 WD7500AYYS 750GB 7200 RPM 16MB
> Cache SATA $200 x 4 = 800
>
> Here is a SWAG at what we'd need to put two 8-core 16GB systems with
> logical mirroring 750GB storage. The cost is $3860 from the above.
> I'd round up to $4000 for tax, shipping, etc.
>
> We might be able to buy other systems for a lower price point.
> I've rounded to be conservative on cost. I would Run Linux with
> Xen and 4 VM's per server which would give us 8 server instances to
> work from.
Cool. As long as Infra can pick them up and manage them, that's great.
In the past, we've always run into hardware/management issues in the
colo's that we've run the machines in. IMO, the more "standard" we are
the more likely that Infra will be able to administer/repair these
machines. Fewer headaches all the way around.
--kevan
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
I did a quick search on the web for what it would take to build two
systems. Here is the initial SWAG.
SuperMicro CSE-825S2-R700LPV U2 Rackmountable eATX Case (700W PSU,
Silver) $750 x 2 = $1500
Sony DRU190A 20X DVD Rewritable Drive - 20x DVD±R $40
x 2 = 80
Dynatron H53G 2U CPU Heatsink For Intel Xeon $50 x 4
= 200
Memory - 2GB DDR2 667 ECC Fully Buffered $80 x 16 = 1280
Disk - Western Digital Caviar RE2 WD7500AYYS 750GB 7200 RPM 16MB
Cache SATA $200 x 4 = 800
Here is a SWAG at what we'd need to put two 8-core 16GB systems with
logical mirroring 750GB storage. The cost is $3860 from the above.
I'd round up to $4000 for tax, shipping, etc.
We might be able to buy other systems for a lower price point. I've
rounded to be conservative on cost. I would Run Linux with Xen and 4
VM's per server which would give us 8 server instances to work from.
Thoughts welcome.
Motherboard Information
http://shopper.cnet.com/cases/supermicro-cse-825s2-r700lpv/4014-3030_9-31954268.html
Heatsink Information
http://www.netfreez.com/?p=catalog&mode=search&search_in=tags&searchstr=xeon
DVD Information
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=3569869&CatId=482
Memory
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820208200
Disk
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136144
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Donald Woods <dw...@apache.org>.
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.)
-Donald
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
>
>
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On May 15, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> On May 14, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> On May 14, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>>> On May 13, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>>> What happened to the AMD systems which were heating up my
>>>> apartment last year? 2 4x (dual core) 16g machines with nice
>>>> RAID cards, etc... ?
>>>
>>> Those machines are owned by IBM. IBM would be happy to donate them
>>> to the ASF. However, they then become a potential support
>>> annoyance/headache/migraine for Infra. IIUC, it's simpler, more
>>> manageable, etc to buy new, standard hardware and roll it into
>>> mainstream ASF infrastructure.
>>
>> Um... that is not what I had understood, I was under the impression
>> that AMD donated them to the Geronimo project for TCK mucky muckski.
>
> AMD donated them to Geronimo. They are "owned" by the project.
They could have been donated for use by Geronimo or GBuild. However,
they can't be "owned" by Geronimo. The Geronimo project can't own
anything... The ASF can own things, but not individual projects.
I have no problems with someone/something donating the machines to the
ASF. However, I doubt they want them. They would become an admin
liability for ASF Infra.
--kevan
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
On May 14, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> On May 14, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>> On May 13, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>> What happened to the AMD systems which were heating up my
>>> apartment last year? 2 4x (dual core) 16g machines with nice RAID
>>> cards, etc... ?
>>
>> Those machines are owned by IBM. IBM would be happy to donate them
>> to the ASF. However, they then become a potential support annoyance/
>> headache/migraine for Infra. IIUC, it's simpler, more manageable,
>> etc to buy new, standard hardware and roll it into mainstream ASF
>> infrastructure.
>
> Um... that is not what I had understood, I was under the impression
> that AMD donated them to the Geronimo project for TCK mucky muckski.
AMD donated them to Geronimo. They are "owned" by the project.
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On May 15, 2008, at 11:31 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, you can't donate to 'Geronimo' per se only to the ASF. I
>> wasn't involved directly in this, but I believe the heritage for
>> the machines is AMD -> IBM. IBM people used the machines for their
>> geronimo work (including GBuild).
>
> I worked with AMD to acquire these systems. When we got the systems
> from AMD they agreed to provide them for the use of the GBuild
> project and were never in a corporate owner's asset list. I
> provided AMD with the ship to address (which I think was David
> Blevins) so continuing to use them for the Geronimo is totally in
> line with what the original intention was.
>
> I think the machines would be fine except that they are now about 4-
> years old and had some issues that Jason struggled with so they may
> not be highly dependable. As far as Lights Out Management I suspect
> that the this means that we would likely plug them into a remote
> power management unit so they can be power cycled remotely and not
> require any manual intervention. I don't know if these machines
> would qualify for that kind of support. We'll need to investigate
> that.
>
> Is someone tracking them down and do we have a current inventory on
> what they are?
>
> As far as machine requirements here is my input. Given that TCK is
> largely single threaded a quad-core system would be fine. Running a
> hypervisor like XEN would make the most sense. I suggest 4GB per
> server instance and with a Quad core that would be 16GB. We can go
> lower on memory but we'll since TCK runs servers, adjunct Java
> processes, etc we'll grow into the extra head room. So, that said,
> we should acquire a Quad-Core 16GB system.
>
> I have some SuperMicro X7DB8+ motherboards (2) I can donate. I have
> processors as well (2.66Ghz dual core or quad core). To make these
> whole we'll need cases, heat sinks and memory. If we figure out
> that this will save us some dough I'd be happy to build the systems
> and prepare them to send to Infra. I've been busy with other stuff
> but I do have time and resources to help out here.
>
> Should I work up a list of required pieces and approximate prices to
> acquire and ship to the remote locations?
Yes, I'm certainly assuming (hoping) that we'll be able to run
multiple images on a single box. We should check to see what sort of
heap sizes we're allocating to the JVM processes during our TCK runs.
To help with calculating guidelines for memory per core.
We also need to discuss with ASF Infra specifics about running XEN (or
similar) hypervisor. We need to be aware of any concerns they might
have...
--kevan
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Jason Dillon wrote:
> eh, might as well pull the kids out now... not sure what to do with
> them, but eh, at the least sell them on ebay and buy me a beer.
>
> :-P
>
> --jason
>
>
> On May 17, 2008, at 1:47 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
>>
>> On May 15, 2008, at 8:31 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>
>>>> Well, you can't donate to 'Geronimo' per se only to the ASF. I
>>>> wasn't involved directly in this, but I believe the heritage for the
>>>> machines is AMD -> IBM. IBM people used the machines for their
>>>> geronimo work (including GBuild).
>>>
>>> I worked with AMD to acquire these systems. When we got the systems
>>> from AMD they agreed to provide them for the use of the GBuild
>>> project and were never in a corporate owner's asset list. I provided
>>> AMD with the ship to address (which I think was David Blevins) so
>>> continuing to use them for the Geronimo is totally in line with what
>>> the original intention was.
>>>
>>> I think the machines would be fine except that they are now about
>>> 4-years old and had some issues that Jason struggled with so they may
>>> not be highly dependable. As far as Lights Out Management I suspect
>>> that the this means that we would likely plug them into a remote
>>> power management unit so they can be power cycled remotely and not
>>> require any manual intervention. I don't know if these machines
>>> would qualify for that kind of support. We'll need to investigate that.
>>>
>>> Is someone tracking them down and do we have a current inventory on
>>> what they are?
>>
>> Just a note on these AMD machines, butters and bebe. They're still in
>> the US Simula (now Exist) colo and unless we have another place to put
>> them they'll eventually be shipped off to Hong Kong where the new
>> Exist colo is. They're still up and running, just have no public IPs.
>>
>> The two Dell U1 servers (stan and kyle) I own are sitting in my
>> closet and I'd be happy to hand them over to the ASF. I offered them
>> before, but the lack of power in the cage was really the issue. Happy
>> to throw them back into the pot if we can get that worked out.
From what I understand power is still an issue. Apparently space is
also a problem at the current data center. There is talk that they
might have to get space at another data center, new cage, etc.. to host
these machines. I guess we'll hear more once we submit a request.
Joe
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
eh, might as well pull the kids out now... not sure what to do with
them, but eh, at the least sell them on ebay and buy me a beer.
:-P
--jason
On May 17, 2008, at 1:47 AM, David Blevins wrote:
>
> On May 15, 2008, at 8:31 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
>>> Well, you can't donate to 'Geronimo' per se only to the ASF. I
>>> wasn't involved directly in this, but I believe the heritage for
>>> the machines is AMD -> IBM. IBM people used the machines for their
>>> geronimo work (including GBuild).
>>
>> I worked with AMD to acquire these systems. When we got the
>> systems from AMD they agreed to provide them for the use of the
>> GBuild project and were never in a corporate owner's asset list. I
>> provided AMD with the ship to address (which I think was David
>> Blevins) so continuing to use them for the Geronimo is totally in
>> line with what the original intention was.
>>
>> I think the machines would be fine except that they are now about 4-
>> years old and had some issues that Jason struggled with so they may
>> not be highly dependable. As far as Lights Out Management I
>> suspect that the this means that we would likely plug them into a
>> remote power management unit so they can be power cycled remotely
>> and not require any manual intervention. I don't know if these
>> machines would qualify for that kind of support. We'll need to
>> investigate that.
>>
>> Is someone tracking them down and do we have a current inventory on
>> what they are?
>
> Just a note on these AMD machines, butters and bebe. They're still
> in the US Simula (now Exist) colo and unless we have another place
> to put them they'll eventually be shipped off to Hong Kong where the
> new Exist colo is. They're still up and running, just have no
> public IPs.
>
> The two Dell U1 servers (stan and kyle) I own are sitting in my
> closet and I'd be happy to hand them over to the ASF. I offered
> them before, but the lack of power in the cage was really the
> issue. Happy to throw them back into the pot if we can get that
> worked out.
>
> -David
>
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On May 15, 2008, at 8:31 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> Well, you can't donate to 'Geronimo' per se only to the ASF. I
>> wasn't involved directly in this, but I believe the heritage for
>> the machines is AMD -> IBM. IBM people used the machines for their
>> geronimo work (including GBuild).
>
> I worked with AMD to acquire these systems. When we got the systems
> from AMD they agreed to provide them for the use of the GBuild
> project and were never in a corporate owner's asset list. I
> provided AMD with the ship to address (which I think was David
> Blevins) so continuing to use them for the Geronimo is totally in
> line with what the original intention was.
>
> I think the machines would be fine except that they are now about 4-
> years old and had some issues that Jason struggled with so they may
> not be highly dependable. As far as Lights Out Management I suspect
> that the this means that we would likely plug them into a remote
> power management unit so they can be power cycled remotely and not
> require any manual intervention. I don't know if these machines
> would qualify for that kind of support. We'll need to investigate
> that.
>
> Is someone tracking them down and do we have a current inventory on
> what they are?
Just a note on these AMD machines, butters and bebe. They're still in
the US Simula (now Exist) colo and unless we have another place to put
them they'll eventually be shipped off to Hong Kong where the new
Exist colo is. They're still up and running, just have no public IPs.
The two Dell U1 servers (stan and kyle) I own are sitting in my
closet and I'd be happy to hand them over to the ASF. I offered them
before, but the lack of power in the cage was really the issue. Happy
to throw them back into the pot if we can get that worked out.
-David
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
>
>
> Well, you can't donate to 'Geronimo' per se only to the ASF. I
> wasn't involved directly in this, but I believe the heritage for the
> machines is AMD -> IBM. IBM people used the machines for their
> geronimo work (including GBuild).
I worked with AMD to acquire these systems. When we got the systems
from AMD they agreed to provide them for the use of the GBuild project
and were never in a corporate owner's asset list. I provided AMD with
the ship to address (which I think was David Blevins) so continuing to
use them for the Geronimo is totally in line with what the original
intention was.
I think the machines would be fine except that they are now about 4-
years old and had some issues that Jason struggled with so they may
not be highly dependable. As far as Lights Out Management I suspect
that the this means that we would likely plug them into a remote power
management unit so they can be power cycled remotely and not require
any manual intervention. I don't know if these machines would qualify
for that kind of support. We'll need to investigate that.
Is someone tracking them down and do we have a current inventory on
what they are?
As far as machine requirements here is my input. Given that TCK is
largely single threaded a quad-core system would be fine. Running a
hypervisor like XEN would make the most sense. I suggest 4GB per
server instance and with a Quad core that would be 16GB. We can go
lower on memory but we'll since TCK runs servers, adjunct Java
processes, etc we'll grow into the extra head room. So, that said, we
should acquire a Quad-Core 16GB system.
I have some SuperMicro X7DB8+ motherboards (2) I can donate. I have
processors as well (2.66Ghz dual core or quad core). To make these
whole we'll need cases, heat sinks and memory. If we figure out that
this will save us some dough I'd be happy to build the systems and
prepare them to send to Infra. I've been busy with other stuff but I
do have time and resources to help out here.
Should I work up a list of required pieces and approximate prices to
acquire and ship to the remote locations?
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On May 14, 2008, at 10:32 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> On May 14, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>> On May 13, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>>> What happened to the AMD systems which were heating up my
>>> apartment last year? 2 4x (dual core) 16g machines with nice RAID
>>> cards, etc... ?
>>
>> Those machines are owned by IBM. IBM would be happy to donate them
>> to the ASF. However, they then become a potential support annoyance/
>> headache/migraine for Infra. IIUC, it's simpler, more manageable,
>> etc to buy new, standard hardware and roll it into mainstream ASF
>> infrastructure.
>
> Um... that is not what I had understood, I was under the impression
> that AMD donated them to the Geronimo project for TCK mucky muckski.
Well, you can't donate to 'Geronimo' per se only to the ASF. I wasn't
involved directly in this, but I believe the heritage for the machines
is AMD -> IBM. IBM people used the machines for their geronimo work
(including GBuild).
--kevan
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On May 14, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> On May 13, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>> What happened to the AMD systems which were heating up my apartment
>> last year? 2 4x (dual core) 16g machines with nice RAID cards,
>> etc... ?
>
> Those machines are owned by IBM. IBM would be happy to donate them
> to the ASF. However, they then become a potential support annoyance/
> headache/migraine for Infra. IIUC, it's simpler, more manageable,
> etc to buy new, standard hardware and roll it into mainstream ASF
> infrastructure.
Um... that is not what I had understood, I was under the impression
that AMD donated them to the Geronimo project for TCK mucky muckski.
--jason
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On May 13, 2008, at 1:25 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> On May 13, 2008, at 10:42 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>> 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.
>
> What happened to the AMD systems which were heating up my apartment
> last year? 2 4x (dual core) 16g machines with nice RAID cards,
> etc... ?
Those machines are owned by IBM. IBM would be happy to donate them to
the ASF. However, they then become a potential support annoyance/
headache/migraine for Infra. IIUC, it's simpler, more manageable, etc
to buy new, standard hardware and roll it into mainstream ASF
infrastructure.
--kevan
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On May 14, 2008, at 2:29 AM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> I'm not sure where those are at but I'm sure we can track them down.
> Another bit of criteria that I learned for ASF hosted machines is
> that they must be rack-mountable and have "lights-out management"
> LOMs. Is that the case for your apartment heating machines?
I've no clue what LOM means...
--jason
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Jason Dillon wrote:
> On May 13, 2008, at 10:42 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
>> 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.
>
> What happened to the AMD systems which were heating up my apartment last
> year? 2 4x (dual core) 16g machines with nice RAID cards, etc... ?
I'm not sure where those are at but I'm sure we can track them down.
Another bit of criteria that I learned for ASF hosted machines is that
they must be rack-mountable and have "lights-out management"
LOMs. Is that the case for your apartment heating machines?
We'll probably want more something like 8-core machines (or possibly
4-core). I was hoping for 3-4 GB per core ... but we might have to
settle for closer to 2 as Donald suggested. I'm not really sure what
the limits on RAM are for these types of machines.
Joe
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
On May 13, 2008, at 10:42 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> 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.
What happened to the AMD systems which were heating up my apartment
last year? 2 4x (dual core) 16g machines with nice RAID cards, etc... ?
--jason
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
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
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
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
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Jason Warner wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Joe Bohn <joe.bohn@earthlink.net
> <ma...@earthlink.net>> wrote:
>
> Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>
> I'll volunteer to help out on supporting the machines.
>
>
> Thanks Jay!
>
>
> I'd be willing to help support the machines as well, if more people are
> needed, assuming you don't need to be a sysadmin superstar to do so.
Excellent Jason .... Thanks for volunteering. I'm going to indicate
that these machines would be developer maintained (unless I hear any
strong objections) and as such we will need 2 developers assigned to them.
Thanks,
Joe
>
>
>
> I haven't been able to to much useful TCK work since my most
> powerful available system is a laptop that gets restarted twice
> a day.
>
>
> I saw some messages between Kevan and Matt so hopefully you have ids
> now (or soon will) for Matt's machines.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> ~Jason Warner
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Jason Warner <ja...@apache.org>.
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>
> > I'll volunteer to help out on supporting the machines.
> >
>
> Thanks Jay!
>
I'd be willing to help support the machines as well, if more people are
needed, assuming you don't need to be a sysadmin superstar to do so.
>
> > I haven't been able to to much useful TCK work since my most powerful
> > available system is a laptop that gets restarted twice a day.
> >
> >
> I saw some messages between Kevan and Matt so hopefully you have ids now
> (or soon will) for Matt's machines.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
--
~Jason Warner
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>.
Jay D. McHugh wrote:
> I'll volunteer to help out on supporting the machines.
Thanks Jay!
>
> I haven't been able to to much useful TCK work since my most powerful
> available system is a laptop that gets restarted twice a day.
>
I saw some messages between Kevan and Matt so hopefully you have ids now
(or soon will) for Matt's machines.
Joe
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by "Jay D. McHugh" <ja...@gmail.com>.
Thanks, that would be great.
Jay
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> On May 13, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>
>> I'll volunteer to help out on supporting the machines.
>>
>> I haven't been able to to much useful TCK work since my most powerful
>> available system is a laptop that gets restarted twice a day.
>
> Heh. That sounds less than ideal. Jay, I'm pretty sure we can get you
> access to the same machines that Joe has used for his testing. Let me
> know, if you're interested.
>
> --kevan
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On May 13, 2008, at 1:07 PM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:
> I'll volunteer to help out on supporting the machines.
>
> I haven't been able to to much useful TCK work since my most
> powerful available system is a laptop that gets restarted twice a day.
Heh. That sounds less than ideal. Jay, I'm pretty sure we can get you
access to the same machines that Joe has used for his testing. Let me
know, if you're interested.
--kevan
Re: ASF hosted machines for TCK testing
Posted by "Jay D. McHugh" <ja...@gmail.com>.
I'll volunteer to help out on supporting the machines.
I haven't been able to to much useful TCK work since my most powerful
available system is a laptop that gets restarted twice a day.
Jay
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.
>
> Thanks,
> Joe
>
>
> ASF infra checklist:
> ---
> This provides a list of requirements and doctrines for web applications
> that wish to be deployed on the Apache Infrastrcture. It is intended to
> help address many of the recurring issues we see with deployment and
> maintainence of applications.
>
> Definition of 'system': Any web application or site which will receive
> traffic from public users in any manner.
>
> Definition of 'critical systems': Any web application or site which runs
> under www.apache.org, or is expected to receive a significant portion of
> traffic.
>
> 1) All systems must be generally secure and robust. In cases of failure,
> they should not damage the entire machine.
>
> 2) All systems must provide reliable backups, at least once a day, with
> preference to incremental, real time or <1 hour snapshots.
>
> 3) All systems must be maintainable by multiple active members of the
> infrastructure team.
>
> 4) All systems must come with a 'runbook' describing what to do in event
> of failures, reboots, etc. (If someone who has root needs to reboot the
> box, what do they need to pay attention to?)
>
> 5) All systems must provide at least minimal monitoring via Nagios.
>
> 6) All systems must be restorable and relocatable to other machines
> without significant pain.
>
> 7) All systems must have some kind of critical mass. In general we do
> not want to host one offs of any system.
>
> 8) All system configuration files must be checked into Subversion.
>
> 9) All system source must either be checked into Subversion, be at a
> well-known public location, or is provided by the base OS. (Hosting
> binary-only webapps is a non-starter.)
>
> 10) All systems, prior to consideration of deployment, must provide a
> detailed performance impact analysis (bandwidth and CPU). How are
> techniques like HTTP caching used? Lack of HTTP caching was MoinMoin's
> initial PITA.
>
> 11) All systems must have clearly articulated, defined, and recorded
> dependencies.
>
> 12) All critical systems must be replicated across multiple machines,
> with preference to cross-atlantic replication.
>
> 13) All systems must have single command operations to start, restart
> and stop the system. Support for init scripts used by the base
> operating system is preferred.