[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 04:35:03PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> (sorry for jumping in late here)
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 07:51:55AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 01:37 +0300, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> > 
> > > At the openmainframeproject EU meetup, it was indicated that SUSE
> > > joined with indication that Open Build Service might be able to use
> > > resources hosted by Marist.
> > > 
> > > I wonder if it makes sense to reach out, and see if there are
> > > resources available to use as porter boxes & build boxes. That way
> > > Debian might be able to get such donated resource available on ongoing
> > > basis and hopefully with some hw support.
> > 
> > Marist already support Debian with an s390x buildd:
> > 
> > ldapsearch -LLL -x -h db.debian.org -b ou=hosts,dc=debian,dc=org  "(sponsor=*marist*)"
> > https://db.debian.org/machines.cgi?host=zani
> > 
> > Our other sponsors for s390 are www.iic.kit.edu and www.zivit.de:
> > 
> > ldapsearch -LLL -x -h db.debian.org -b ou=hosts,dc=debian,dc=org  "(architecture=s390*)" sponsor
> Given that we already seem to have three hardware sponsors for the s390x
> port, is this really a concern?

Our standard for buildd / porterboxen of a released architecture is:
- multiple machines (N + 1, N sufficient to handle the buildd / porter load)
- under warranty or post-warranty hardware support for the duration of their
  use as buildds / porterboxen including through the LTS timeframe
- located in multiple geographic locations (EU and NA, ideally)
- hosted by different hosting partners, each providing high availability
  (power, cooling, networking) and intelligent remote hands
- under Debian control and/or ownership; available & affordable 
- redundant disks and power supplies
- out-of-band service processor with power management or equivalent

Not satisfying the fifth bullet is a minor concern in the case of s390x.

> If we were to lose one sponsor, we'd still have two (and it would be
> reasonable to try to ensure that we get a new sponsor to replace the one
> lost).

Indeed.  The more redundnant sponsors, the less worrying is the concern.

> How about making it a requirement that there is some level of redundancy
> in sponsors for ports where hardware cannot be easily bought with Debian
> money? That would cover the s390x port as well as any potential other
> insanely-expensive-hardware port[1] that we might support now or in the
> future.

That is our requirement, effectively.  The mild concern has not blocked the
port from releasing.  That said, the concern should be documented.

> If push comes to shove, we could also talk to IBM. Pretty much all POWER
> hardware we have was sponsored by IBM; it's not unreasonable to assume they
> might be willing to also sponsor s390x time or hardware.

Luca Filipozzi

Reply to: