Re: Donation of a Calxeda Highbank node
Hello,
2013/6/27 Luca Filipozzi <lfilipoz@debian.org>:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 07:27:54PM +0000, David Power wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:56:51AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
>> > My main concern is that having a single node as buildd without another
>> > for development purposes means that we don't have easy means to keep
>> > testing for example kernel upgrades.
>> Can I ask how far your efforts in porting have gone? Is there a wheezy
>> release for highbank that we could test out internally?
The armhf userland should run on those boxes, it already does in a
chroot environment. ARM hardware enablement is missing in Debian, for
example, custom IPMI Calxeda tools I think are not yet integrated in
Debian, but Ubuntu have those available. There is also missing
bootloader, and I do not think mainline u-boot/grub supports those
boxes yet. Kernel wise, there is a current effort to migrate as much
ARM platforms we have in Debian to armmp kernel (a.k.a. ARM
multiplatform). Those kernels we have been trying to test on the
donated node, but we are currently blocked on getting access to IPMI
interface in case we need to recover from the disaster. If you can
test armmp kernel and let us know something, that would really be a
step forward.
< http://packages.debian.org/unstable/linux-image-3.9-1-armmp >
>> I would be more than happy to make some hardware available remotely for
>> you to use as a second build/test server. We have genuine demand for
>> debian on our platform. I'd also be happy to get involved in any way I can
>> to help out.
I think that is very welcome from ARM porters point of view. Thanks
for the offer.
> Hi Dave,
>
> We are more than happy to receive donations that assist us in properly
> addressing the buildd/porter requirements for the ARM architecture.
>
> Generally speaking, our requirements for equipment to be used as buildd/porter
> machines are as follows:
>
> * reliability - The stable release manager requires that we operate
> three machines for each port: two buildd machines in different
> locations and one porter machine. These machines must be reliable.
We already got ipa.debian.net, if David can give more nodes to Debian,
then I think the requirement can be fulfilled.
> * out of band management - We require the ability to manage the machines
> independently of their primary network interface: serial console or
> better, remotely-controllable power.
David, could you also allow Debian admins into IPMI interface?
> * supportability - We require that the machines be commercialy available
> (within financial constraints) and that they be supportable through a
> warranty or post-warranty support or are otherwise easy to replace.
Those machines are selling commercially now.
> * stability - We require that the machine's architecture have an
> actively-maintained stable kernel in the archive.
Currently, there is an effort on going, as I explained above, but it
is not yet finished, just starting:
< http://packages.debian.org/unstable/linux-image-3.9-1-armmp >
> * environment - We require that packages critical for DSA operations be
> available: puppet, samhain, syslog-ng, ferm/pf, etc.
The armhf port already contains those.
> We would prefer to house such equipment in one of the data centres where we
> have an existing presence (grnet (Greece), man-da (Germany), ubcece (Canada))
> but we are amenable to a discussion regarding having a business host the
> equipment on our behalf as long as the above requirements are met.
>
> Please let me know how you'd like to proceed.
>
> And thank you for your offer. It is *only* through the generous donation of
> time, equipment and/or funds from businesses and/or individuals such as
> yourself that volunteers are able to make the operating system known as Debian.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Luca
>
> Debian System Administration Team
> Debian Hardware Donations Team
>
> --
> Luca Filipozzi
> http://www.crowdrise.com/SupportDebian
Regards,
--
Héctor Orón -.. . -... .. .- -. -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-.
Debian ARM porter
Debian ARM buildd admin
Reply to: