Buildfarm build_test script on an embedded device.
Christopher R. Hertel
crh at ubiqx.mn.org
Wed Oct 5 15:11:52 MDT 2011
I've looked at the Beagleboard. I think Kai has one. It would be more
powerful, certainly, than the Dockstar I'm running. The Ethernet NIC
shouldn't be a problem.
I would *not* recommend that you buy one just for this purpose. If you have
other reasons to get one, or you have one already, it would be very
interesting to me to see what results you get.
If you want to give it a try, you could follow the instructions here:
Skip mailing the build farm maintainers. The key thing is to download and
run the build_test script in a directory that you can scrub later. I used
an external USB drive as a location for building. I also set aside a
partition as swap space. Swap is recommended, since I do not know how much
RAM the build actually requires.
Terrance Hutchinson wrote:
> 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 lists.samba.org [mailto:samba-technical-bounces at lists.samba.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Allison
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:07 AM
> To: Christopher R. Hertel
> Cc: samba-technical at lists.samba.org; 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 ?
"Implementing CIFS - the Common Internet FileSystem" ISBN: 013047116X
Samba Team -- http://www.samba.org/ -)----- Christopher R. Hertel
jCIFS Team -- http://jcifs.samba.org/ -)----- ubiqx development, uninq.
ubiqx Team -- http://www.ubiqx.org/ -)----- crh at ubiqx.mn.org
OnLineBook -- http://ubiqx.org/cifs/ -)----- crh at ubiqx.org
More information about the samba-technical