-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
hi Ashish,
Fabian is putting together a VM ( or 2 if you need more ), for the BE bringup. This would be a fedora19 VM.
Fabian: Ashish has confirmed that he has all the mock configs required to bringup the CentOS 7.1406 os/ release content, then build the updates upto May 2015 content. So here is what I see happening,
1) Fabian to setup a VM for ppc64 BE 2) Fabian to setup a VM for ppc ( multilib, 32 bit ) 3) Ashish to file a bug report at bugs.centos.org to req direct access, include ssh key 4) Fabian to get Ashish setup, and get Ashish an account on the ipv4 jumphost. 5) One that is in place, Ashish to build mock itself on the machines for either 64bit or 32bit 6) Fabian to let Ashish know the mirror url for fedora19, which would be the base of the builds 7) Ashish should then be able to kick off the first bringup cycle, with mock configs he already has in place. 8) build to CentOS-7 1406 content being complete. 9) Checkpoint at this stage, to evaluate payload, build process, build delivery and workout path to automating builds from there on.
We are going to use the centos-devel mailing list for communications, and irc channel #centos-ppc
I am going to once again request everyone to keep AWAY from private conversations, and stick to the community visible avenues, so we can all track ( and help! ) as things evolve.
We can repeat the same process for LE, s/Ashish/James/ for that. I would defer to letting Ashish and James to include other people in the process as needed, however - all user accounts MUST be created via the bugs.centos.org process, and its important that Fabian is able to execute the creation + access ( so its logged and auditable ).
Once we have step-5 in place, we can engage with Jim Perrin, and workout the modalities and process of including the effort into the CentOS AltArch SIG - which would give us a distro, test, delivery proces s.
does this work for everyone involved here ?
regards,
- -- Karanbir Singh, Project Lead, The CentOS Project +44-207-0999389 | http://www.centos.org/ | twitter.com/CentOS GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
centos-devel-bounces@centos.org wrote on 09/11/2015 06:25:40 AM:
From: Karanbir Singh kbsingh@centos.org Fabian is putting together a VM ( or 2 if you need more ), for the BE bringup. This would be a fedora19 VM.
Thanks, KB. This is exciting!!!
<snip>
We can repeat the same process for LE, s/Ashish/James/ for that. I would defer to letting Ashish and James to include other people in the process as needed, however - all user accounts MUST be created via the bugs.centos.org process, and its important that Fabian is able to execute the creation + access ( so its logged and auditable ).
As James can tell you, LE will not be so simple. It will need to be "from scratch" because of mis-matches between Fedora and CentOS 7 package levels associated with the ppc64le enablement and glibc "year zero" for this new architecture. But, rest assured that James has the "recipe" to do this. Thus, there's MUCH more work on the LE side of things.
<snip>
does this work for everyone involved here ?
What's the outlook for getting LE VMs so that the this started as well. I'm getting lots of pressure for LE CentOS from customers, partners, and clients.
Perhaps we can get folks who have shown interest in having Power on CentOS to post their preferred architecture here?
Once we have step-5 in place, we can engage with Jim Perrin, and workout the modalities and process of including the effort into the CentOS AltArch SIG - which would give us a distro, test, delivery proces
Sounds like a plan. As they say in U.S. auto-racing events, "Gentlemen, start your engines!!!"
THANKS, -Jeff
Jeffrey J. Scheel
On 11/09/15 13:11, Jeffrey Scheel wrote:
does this work for everyone involved here ?
What's the outlook for getting LE VMs so that the this started as well. I'm getting lots of pressure for LE CentOS from customers, partners, and clients.
I believe the LE VM's are already there, or will be there sometime today ( Fabian is working with James for those ).
Perhaps we can get folks who have shown interest in having Power on CentOS to post their preferred architecture here?
that would be good, although we've had more request for power5 than power8 :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11/09/15 15:10, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 11/09/15 13:11, Jeffrey Scheel wrote:
does this work for everyone involved here ?
What's the outlook for getting LE VMs so that the this started as well. I'm getting lots of pressure for LE CentOS from customers, partners, and clients.
I believe the LE VM's are already there, or will be there sometime today ( Fabian is working with James for those ).
Perhaps we can get folks who have shown interest in having Power on CentOS to post their preferred architecture here?
that would be good, although we've had more request for power5 than power8 :)
Yeah, I'm working on that, but hit some kickstart issues and anaconda crashes .. I hope to have that solved/fixed soon a,d so have the required VMs available probably early next week.
Cheers,
- -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab
centos-devel-bounces@centos.org wrote on 09/11/2015 08:10:42 AM:
From: Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org On 11/09/15 13:11, Jeffrey Scheel wrote:
does this work for everyone involved here ?
What's the outlook for getting LE VMs so that the this started as
well.
I'm getting lots of pressure for LE CentOS from customers, partners, and clients.
I believe the LE VM's are already there, or will be there sometime today ( Fabian is working with James for those ).
Perhaps we can get folks who have shown interest in having Power on CentOS to post their preferred architecture here?
that would be good, although we've had more request for power5 than power8 :)
The desire to have Power5 support on Centos7 could lead to an interesting discussion. RHEL 7 on Power does not support POWER5. This means that we could change CentOS to include it, but then that likely means the performance of CentOS7 on POWER8 would suffer compared to RHEL7.
I'm the newbie here so will follow the lead of the community on how to solve. It should be a great discussion, though. I love the age-old engineering paradox (as I call it): cheap, fast, good, pick 2! -Jeff
Jeffrey J. Scheel
On Sep 11, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Jeffrey Scheel scheel@us.ibm.com wrote:
centos-devel-bounces@centos.org wrote on 09/11/2015 08:10:42 AM:
From: Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org On 11/09/15 13:11, Jeffrey Scheel wrote:
does this work for everyone involved here ?
What's the outlook for getting LE VMs so that the this started as well. I'm getting lots of pressure for LE CentOS from customers, partners, and clients.
I believe the LE VM's are already there, or will be there sometime today ( Fabian is working with James for those ).
Perhaps we can get folks who have shown interest in having Power on CentOS to post their preferred architecture here?
that would be good, although we've had more request for power5 than power8 :)
The desire to have Power5 support on Centos7 could lead to an interesting discussion. RHEL 7 on Power does not support POWER5. This means that we could change CentOS to include it, but then that likely means the performance of CentOS7 on POWER8 would suffer compared to RHEL7.
I'm the newbie here so will follow the lead of the community on how to solve. It should be a great discussion, though. I love the age-old engineering paradox (as I call it): cheap, fast, good, pick 2! -Jeff
My vote for folks that want different power tunings from RHEL 7 would be to either:
a) Create separate ppc64p[456] rpm arches and toolchains so as to not hobble the p7/p8 tunings in RHEL7 ppc64le/ppc64. This would be similar to Fedora’s ppc64p7 arch that existed for a brief time. If you want to match RHEL7 compatibility, thou shouldn’t mess with the gcc/glibc tunings. A similar path could be followed for any embedded IBM/Freescale ppc chips.
b) Think hard about a c6 port for ppc64 which would support P6 at least. Doesn’t get you anywhere fast with LE and would be tackled after the c7 ppc64le and ppc64 efforts.
On Sep 11, 2015, at 6:25 AM, Karanbir Singh kbsingh@centos.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
hi Ashish,
Fabian is putting together a VM ( or 2 if you need more ), for the BE bringup. This would be a fedora19 VM.
Fabian: Ashish has confirmed that he has all the mock configs required to bringup the CentOS 7.1406 os/ release content, then build the updates upto May 2015 content. So here is what I see happening,
- Fabian to setup a VM for ppc64 BE
- Fabian to setup a VM for ppc ( multilib, 32 bit )
- Ashish to file a bug report at bugs.centos.org to req direct
access, include ssh key 4) Fabian to get Ashish setup, and get Ashish an account on the ipv4 jumphost. 5) One that is in place, Ashish to build mock itself on the machines for either 64bit or 32bit 6) Fabian to let Ashish know the mirror url for fedora19, which would be the base of the builds 7) Ashish should then be able to kick off the first bringup cycle, with mock configs he already has in place. 8) build to CentOS-7 1406 content being complete. 9) Checkpoint at this stage, to evaluate payload, build process, build delivery and workout path to automating builds from there on.
I’ve got the BE side of the house covered too or will delegate as appropriate so pass this all through s/Ashish/James/ as well.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 11/09/15 17:08, James O'Connor wrote:
On Sep 11, 2015, at 6:25 AM, Karanbir Singh kbsingh@centos.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
hi Ashish,
Fabian is putting together a VM ( or 2 if you need more ), for the BE bringup. This would be a fedora19 VM.
Fabian: Ashish has confirmed that he has all the mock configs required to bringup the CentOS 7.1406 os/ release content, then build the updates upto May 2015 content. So here is what I see happening,
- Fabian to setup a VM for ppc64 BE 2) Fabian to setup a VM for
ppc ( multilib, 32 bit ) 3) Ashish to file a bug report at bugs.centos.org to req direct access, include ssh key 4) Fabian to get Ashish setup, and get Ashish an account on the ipv4 jumphost. 5) One that is in place, Ashish to build mock itself on the machines for either 64bit or 32bit 6) Fabian to let Ashish know the mirror url for fedora19, which would be the base of the builds 7) Ashish should then be able to kick off the first bringup cycle, with mock configs he already has in place. 8) build to CentOS-7 1406 content being complete. 9) Checkpoint at this stage, to evaluate payload, build process, build delivery and workout path to automating builds from there on.
I’ve got the BE side of the house covered too or will delegate as appropriate so pass this all through s/Ashish/James/ as well.
So, I've been "off and on" on this today , and I had to fight a strange ppc64 bug with anaconda and kickstart for f19/f20. Current status is that I have kickstart working now for the f19/f20/f21 ppc64 and f21 ppc64le. So next question is how much VMs do we want/need for the initial bootstrap ? IIRC we said something like F19 ppc64/ 4Gb/40GB disk (in lvm) ? Correct me if I'm wrong . How much VMs for that ? Depending on the number of builders (threads) we'll have after that to think about common storage for repositories and so on .. but let's start "easy".
Cheers,
- -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab
On Sep 11, 2015, at 12:57 PM, Fabian Arrotin arrfab@centos.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
So, I've been "off and on" on this today , and I had to fight a strange ppc64 bug with anaconda and kickstart for f19/f20. Current status is that I have kickstart working now for the f19/f20/f21 ppc64 and f21 ppc64le. So next question is how much VMs do we want/need for the initial bootstrap ? IIRC we said something like F19 ppc64/ 4Gb/40GB disk (in lvm) ? Correct me if I'm wrong . How much VMs for that ? Depending on the number of builders (threads) we'll have after that to think about common storage for repositories and so on .. but let's start "easy".
Out of curiosity what does a typical c7-x86_64 builder look like for cpu, memory, and disk?
I think 2-4x f19-ppc64 BE builders with 2-4 cores, 8GB of memory and 20-40GB of disk should suffice for now.
And I only need 1x f21-ppc64le LE builder with 4 cores, 8GB of memory and 50-100GB of disk if you spare it for now. A lot of the initial toolchain building, and rpm wrangling has to happen in a persistent mockroot that grows with every ppc64le rpm that gets built. Once enough c7 ppc64le rpms exist, that builder can go away and we can do some LE parallel builds atop c7-ppc64le builders with less /var/lib/mock disk space.
On 11/09/15 20:18, James O'Connor wrote:
Out of curiosity what does a typical c7-x86_64 builder look like for cpu, memory, and disk?
1 cpu core ( all builds run single threaded ), 4 gb of ram and 40 gb disk. one of the vm's has 80gb of disk and libreoffice / kernel builds go there. its the same for c6 as well.
atleast on ARMv8 I'm not planning on VMs at all, and just use isolation on the host machine itself.
regards,
On Sep 11, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 11/09/15 20:18, James O'Connor wrote:
Out of curiosity what does a typical c7-x86_64 builder look like for cpu, memory, and disk?
1 cpu core ( all builds run single threaded ), 4 gb of ram and 40 gb disk. one of the vm's has 80gb of disk and libreoffice / kernel builds go there. its the same for c6 as well.
The c7-x86_64 builder specs are fine by me for BE and LE. So I revise my estimates:
3x f19-ppc64 builders with 1 cpu core, 4G memory, 40G disk 1x f19-ppc64 builder with 1 cpu core, 4G memory, 80G disk for kernel, webkitgtk3
1x f21-ppc64le builder with 1 cpu core, 4G memory, 40G disk 1x f21-ppc64le builder with 1 cpu core, 4G memory, 80G disk for LFS toolchain, kernel, webkitgtk3
libreoffice.spec has
%if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} >= 7 # improve build time by only building for platforms libreoffice is shipped for ExcludeArch: %{ix86} ppc ppc64 s390 s390x %endif
Are we getting both BE and LE setups on same host ?
Thanks Ashish
From: "James O'Connor" jpoc@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: "The CentOS developers mailing list." centos-devel@centos.org Date: 09/12/2015 04:27 AM Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] CentOS-7 / powerpc BE bring up Sent by: centos-devel-bounces@centos.org
On Sep 11, 2015, at 3:15 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org
wrote:
On 11/09/15 20:18, James O'Connor wrote:
Out of curiosity what does a typical c7-x86_64 builder look like for
cpu, memory, and disk?
1 cpu core ( all builds run single threaded ), 4 gb of ram and 40 gb disk. one of the vm's has 80gb of disk and libreoffice / kernel builds go there. its the same for c6 as well.
The c7-x86_64 builder specs are fine by me for BE and LE. So I revise my estimates:
3x f19-ppc64 builders with 1 cpu core, 4G memory, 40G disk 1x f19-ppc64 builder with 1 cpu core, 4G memory, 80G disk for kernel, webkitgtk3
1x f21-ppc64le builder with 1 cpu core, 4G memory, 40G disk 1x f21-ppc64le builder with 1 cpu core, 4G memory, 80G disk for LFS toolchain, kernel, webkitgtk3
libreoffice.spec has
%if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} >= 7 # improve build time by only building for platforms libreoffice is shipped for ExcludeArch: %{ix86} ppc ppc64 s390 s390x %endif
_______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 12/09/15 07:57, Ashish Kumar9 wrote:
Are we getting both BE and LE setups on same host ?
Thanks Ashish
Yes, but as different VMs. Those 6 VMs asked by James are now installed (see his previous mail in the same thread)
Cheers,
- -- Fabian Arrotin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org gpg key: 56BEC54E | twitter: @arrfab
-
Ashish Kumar9 -
Fabian Arrotin -
James O'Connor -
Jeffrey Scheel -
Karanbir Singh -
Karanbir Singh