Buildfarm build_test script on an embedded device.

Terrance Hutchinson Terrance.Hutchinson at
Wed Oct 5 14:56:14 MDT 2011

Would a beagleboard with a 1GHz ARM Cortex A8 with 512MB of RAM and a 4GB micro-SD card  work as a good embedded device?

Of course a larger SD card could be used if need be. The device isn't an A9 or dual-core ARM but it's recent and it's a decent price?
The downside is that the internet is only 10/100 not 10/100/1000. 

Sorry if this is off topic, it's only a suggestion when the time comes to determine what would be good for the embedded Samba work.


-----Original Message-----
From: samba-technical-bounces at [mailto:samba-technical-bounces at] On Behalf Of Jeremy Allison
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:07 AM
To: Christopher R. Hertel
Cc: samba-technical at; Andrew Bartlett
Subject: Re: Buildfarm build_test script on an embedded device.

On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 10:47:48AM -0500, 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.
> 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.
> Kai:  What do you think about creating a separate Embedded Build Farm
>       environment?  Would that be beneficial?  I will contribute at least
>       the one Dockstar and possibly additional systems (I have a TI device
>       available too, though I have other plans for it).
> ABartlet:  Is this do-able?  What resources would be required?

Not that I can offer any resources :-), but I just want to say what an *excellent* idea this is.

Having a separate "Embedded Samba" build environment (and/or test
environment) will enable us to work on producing a slimmed down set of Samba versions that embedded device makers can use for specific purposes - the single purpose AD-server, the single-purpose file server etc.

Maybe have a separate waf build target for these specific build types ?


More information about the samba-technical mailing list