Re: [Stretch] Status for architecture qualification
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 07:39:46PM +0000, Niels Thykier wrote:
>Steve McIntyre:
>> [...]
>>>>> - armel has a RT concern about lack of buildds (only 2)
>>>>>
>>>> I think this is outdated, my understanding is that armel and armhf are
>>>> now using a shared buildd pool. I see arnold, hoiby, henze, hasse,
>>>> antheil and hartmann recently active on the armel buildd page and the
>>>> same on the armhf page.
>>>
>>> Ok, so a total of 6 shared between the two architectures?
>>
>> Correct. We'll also have the possibility of arm64 machines building
>> armhf at some point - arm64 server machines are starting to appear and
>> are much better designed for this kind of workload.
>
>Ok. I have re-shuffled the buildds so there are now 3 for each port and
>removed the RM concern for now.
Thanks.
>I am hoping DSA will follow up on the remote power and the management
>concerns.
There is a PDU in place in the rack at ARM, but those Marvell buildds
need a button push to power up which makes it kind of moot for *those*
machines. Then again, in all the time we've been using those machines
I don't think it's actually ever been an issue yet.
Other machines there are remote powerable. All the arm64 boxes are
remote powerable (in ARM and Linaro's Austin colo). As we add more
of these boxes, I expect to get more remote management too.
On the "multiple concerns (strong)" thing, I quote:
2016-06-06 15:33 BST<@zumbi> Sledge_: tbh, dsa have not updated arch
qualification status, it is outdated from past release
I don't see any showstoppers here for the ARM ports.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
< liw> everything I know about UK hotels I learned from "Fawlty Towers"
Reply to: