Buildfarm build_test script on an embedded device.
mat at samba.org
Wed Oct 5 11:35:15 MDT 2011
On 05/10/2011 17:47, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> Some notes, as we consider how we will move forward with Embedded Samba.
> Matthieu's changes to the build_test script reduced the run time by only two
> hours. That, again, emphasizes the point that it's likely the code build
> itself that is taking too long.
I was a quick shot ... without the log I can't see what's taking lot of
time, and even with my patch you still run make test but with 1
environment, I don't know how much time it could shave on my computer.
I would say 2 hours is not so bad.
> That said, I am, at this point, only using the build_test script to help get
> a sense of the problems we face working in this environment. I believe that
> Kai is right that we need to figure out how to improve all aspects of our
> performance in the embedded space--I don't want to give this up. Andrew is
> also correct that the build farm, as it is currently designed and working,
> is not suited to including these kinds of devices. I also understand that
> changing the workings of the build farm to accommodate embedded platforms is
> not currently a reasonable suggestion.
> The solution may be to set up a separate pool of embedded devices. I'm not
> sure yet. I still have a lot to learn about the workings of the build farm.
I'm quite against it, I really don't see the problem of having them in
the build farm. If the problem is basically that build is running too
long on them and so developers who receive a mail about a breakage have
to wait too much time before being notified to see if they broke
something or if they fixed something I would say that it's a very bad
excuse as basically by default nobody cares about the build farm.
I've spent enough time last year fixing and bringing it back to a
I remember clearly phrases of people breaking a platform that I just
fixed and arguing that they didn't had the time to see how to fix it
because well their stuff was very important. So no really this is *not*
a good excuse to me. Even though, I don't see what prevents us to define
this build machine as "we don't care" or as "only xxx cares", because
for instance I don't care about the breakage of samba4 on Irix because
I'm pretty sure nobody will try to run a DC on Irix.
If the speed is also a criteria, then there is a couple of machines that
needs to be reformed as make test takes ~10 hours to run on sun8 if you
had at least 1 hours of compilation it's not that far from your ARM box.
I think I already had the occasion to say it but I think that for the DC
part at least we should be able to run a make testlight (or quicktest if
this one is appropriate) on the weakest machines so that the build and
the test are done in a reasonable amount of time.
In the same time something has to be done to reduce the time of a make
test because it's way too long, jelmer presented a way to display the
time taken by each test. It's a good indicator of where there is some
stuff to do.
More information about the samba-technical