Horton

Thread

  1. What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> — 2007-04-05T23:13:20Z

    I'm in the process of building a new box that will have Dual Xeon 5120's
(Dual Core), and 4G of ram and 2.4T of disk (6x400G SATA).

 

It will have CentOS 4.4 X86_64 as the base os with VMWare Server running on
it. 

 

I am willing to run any X86 or X64 OS's in VM's as buildfarm clients.  

 

What OS's do we need coverage for?

 

LER

 

 

-- 

Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler

Phone: +1 512-248-2683                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org

US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893

  2. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2007-04-05T23:18:00Z

    > 
> It will have CentOS 4.4 X86_64 as the base os with VMWare Server running 
> on it.
> 
>  
> 
> I am willing to run any X86 or X64 OS’s in VM’s as buildfarm clients. 
> 
>  
> 
> What OS’s do we need coverage for?

CentOS5 hits ina  couple days.

J


> 
>  
> 
> LER
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> 
> Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
> 
> Phone: +1 512-248-2683                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
> 
> US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893
> 
>  
> 


-- 

       === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
              http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

  3. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> — 2007-04-05T23:28:39Z

    I might use that as the base then, since the hardware finishes getting here
tomorrow.

My question still stands on what OS's we need coverage for.

-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 512-248-2683                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893


-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D. Drake
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 6:18 PM
To: Larry Rosenman
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?


> 
> It will have CentOS 4.4 X86_64 as the base os with VMWare Server running 
> on it.
> 
>  
> 
> I am willing to run any X86 or X64 OS's in VM's as buildfarm clients. 
> 
>  
> 
> What OS's do we need coverage for?

CentOS5 hits ina  couple days.

J


> 
>  
> 
> LER
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> 
> Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
> 
> Phone: +1 512-248-2683                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
> 
> US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893
> 
>  
> 


-- 

       === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
              http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
       match

  4. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> — 2007-04-06T02:02:56Z

    ler@lerctr.org ("Larry Rosenman") writes:
> I might use that as the base then, since the hardware finishes getting here
> tomorrow.
>
> My question still stands on what OS's we need coverage for.

I've got Debian testing/unstable covered.  I'm not sure we have
Novell/SuSE covered...
-- 
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "linuxdatabases.info")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/emacs.html
"Motto for a research laboratory: What we work on today, others will
first think of tomorrow." -- Alan J. Perlis

  5. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Matthew T. O'Connor <matthew@tocr.com> — 2007-04-06T05:23:26Z

    Larry Rosenman wrote:
> I might use that as the base then, since the hardware finishes getting here
> tomorrow.

The other thing to consider is that CentOS 5 has Xen built right in, so 
you should be able run VMs without VMWare on it.

  6. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@commandprompt.com> — 2007-04-06T06:42:38Z

    Hi,

On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 01:23 -0400, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> 
> The other thing to consider is that CentOS 5 has Xen built right in,
> so you should be able run VMs without VMWare on it. 

... if the kernel of the OS has Xen support, there will be no
performance penalty (only 2%-3%) (Para-virtualization). Otherwise, there
will be full-virtualization, and we should expect a performance loss
about 30% for each guest OS (like Windows).

Regards, 
-- 
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.CommandPrompt.com

  7. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Marko Kreen <markokr@gmail.com> — 2007-04-06T06:58:43Z

    On 4/6/07, Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> wrote:
> I am willing to run any X86 or X64 OS's in VM's as buildfarm clients.
>
> What OS's do we need coverage for?

Cannot say about OS, but could you run it with
Python 2.5?  64bit interface changed there and it
would be interesting to see if it still works.

-- 
marko

  8. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Matthew T. O'Connor <matthew@zeut.net> — 2007-04-06T07:53:48Z

    Devrim Gündüz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 01:23 -0400, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
>> The other thing to consider is that CentOS 5 has Xen built right in,
>> so you should be able run VMs without VMWare on it. 
> 
> ... if the kernel of the OS has Xen support, there will be no
> performance penalty (only 2%-3%) (Para-virtualization). Otherwise, there
> will be full-virtualization, and we should expect a performance loss
> about 30% for each guest OS (like Windows).

I may be wrong but I thought that the guest OS kernel only needs special 
support if the underlying CPU doesn't have virtualization support which 
pretty much all the new Intel and AMD chips have.  No?

  9. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Sander Steffann <s.steffann@computel.nl> — 2007-04-06T09:46:14Z

    Hi,

>> ... if the kernel of the OS has Xen support, there will be no
>> performance penalty (only 2%-3%) (Para-virtualization). Otherwise, there
>> will be full-virtualization, and we should expect a performance loss
>> about 30% for each guest OS (like Windows).
>
> I may be wrong but I thought that the guest OS kernel only needs special 
> support if the underlying CPU doesn't have virtualization support which 
> pretty much all the new Intel and AMD chips have.  No?

You need that CPU support if you want to do full virtualization at all. 
Otherwise you can only use para-virtualization. Para-virtualization has much 
better performance, but full virtualization is more flexible because you 
don't need special kernel support in the guest.

- Sander

  10. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Paul Lindner <lindner@inuus.com> — 2007-04-06T11:25:24Z

    On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 06:28:39PM -0500, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> I might use that as the base then, since the hardware finishes getting here
> tomorrow.
> 
> My question still stands on what OS's we need coverage for.

I can provide coverage of SuSE Enterprise 9/10 on i386/x86_64.  I just
filled out the form on the buildfarm page, so I'm awaiting further
instructions....


-- 
Paul Lindner        ||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |
lindner@inuus.com

  11. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> — 2007-04-06T13:25:29Z

    On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Matthew O'Connor wrote:

> Devrim Gndz wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 01:23 -0400, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
>>> The other thing to consider is that CentOS 5 has Xen built right in,
>>> so you should be able run VMs without VMWare on it. 
>> 
>> ... if the kernel of the OS has Xen support, there will be no
>> performance penalty (only 2%-3%) (Para-virtualization). Otherwise, there
>> will be full-virtualization, and we should expect a performance loss
>> about 30% for each guest OS (like Windows).
>
> I may be wrong but I thought that the guest OS kernel only needs special 
> support if the underlying CPU doesn't have virtualization support which 
> pretty much all the new Intel and AMD chips have.  No?
>
It doesn't matter as far as MY box is concerned.  I use VMWare extensively
in my current $DAYJOB, and I want to be able to test/play with things related
to that as well.  The box I'm building will be using the (free) VMWare Server
as it's virtualization platform.

I'd still like to hear from a Tom Lane or someone else on the project with what
X86 or X86_64 OS's we need coverage for.

LER

> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>

-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 512-248-2683                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893
>From pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org  Fri Apr  6 11:09:32 2007
Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3870A9FB47A
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>; Fri,  6 Apr 2007 11:09:31 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
 by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id 12956-02 for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
 Fri,  6 Apr 2007 11:09:17 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from nabagan.bluegap.ch (nabagan.bluegap.ch [88.198.58.248])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EBA59FB542
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Fri,  6 Apr 2007 11:09:04 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from [192.168.77.28] (p54bd9cdd.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [::ffff:84.189.156.221])
  (AUTH: CRAM-MD5 markus@bluegap.ch, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,256bits,AES256-SHA)
  by nabagan.bluegap.ch with esmtp; Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:08:19 +0200
  id 0023735E.46166264.00003A6D
Message-ID: <46165475.5070009@bluegap.ch>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:08:53 +0200
From: Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>
User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070307)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
CC: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>,
  Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
  Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>,
  "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>,
  Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>, NikhilS <nikkhils@gmail.com>,
  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Auto Partitioning
References: <d3c4af540704030836o242c49cl2688ab4ec9808ac3@mail.gmail.com> <46139825.6080204@bluegap.ch> <1175694172.3623.120.camel@silverbirch.site> <87648ckzi0.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <4613BB72.1090602@bluegap.ch> <871wj0ko91.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <4613F49E.1030901@bluegap.ch> <1175713305.3623.197.camel@silverbirch.site> <4613F809.2010607@commandprompt.com> <4613FDAB.6080501@bluegap.ch> <20070405081029.GA17587@svana.org> <46155565.2010605@bluegap.ch> <28487.1175838996@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1175843479.3623.463.camel@silverbirch.site> <E1539E0ED7043848906A8FF995BDA57901E7B93D@m0143.s-mxs.net> <1175864959.3623.497.camel@silverbirch.site>
In-Reply-To: <1175864959.3623.497.camel@silverbirch.site>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200704/317
X-Sequence-Number: 101650

Simon Riggs wrote:
> i.e. if we have partitions for each year (2001, 2002, 2003 2004, 2005,
> 2006, 2007) AND we have already proved that 2005 is excluded when we
> have a WHERE clause saying year >= 2006, then we should be able to use
> the ordering to prove that partitions for 2004 and before are also
> automatically excluded.

Provided you've set up the right constraints, the current 
constraint_exclusion feature does exactly that, no?

> I'll think some more about the Merge node, but not right now.

I've looked at nodeAppend.c and nodeMergeJoin.c. Probably we can use 
much of nodeMergeJoin, just without the join? Instead returning the 
tuples as they are, but in the correct order. The nodeMergeJoin code can 
only handle two inputs (a left and a right node), but it might be 
beneficial to structure multiple merge nodes into a binary tree layout 
anyway. (I'm guessing that might reduce the amount of comparisons needed).

What do you think?

Regards

Markus

  12. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> — 2007-04-06T14:13:42Z

    
Larry Rosenman wrote:
> It doesn't matter as far as MY box is concerned.  I use VMWare 
> extensively
> in my current $DAYJOB, and I want to be able to test/play with things 
> related
> to that as well.  The box I'm building will be using the (free) VMWare 
> Server
> as it's virtualization platform.
>
> I'd still like to hear from a Tom Lane or someone else on the project 
> with what
> X86 or X86_64 OS's we need coverage for.
>
>

VMWare Server is indeed a fine product, which I use extensively.

I am not sure what our Windows support is like for x86_64. Magnus has 
one for MSVC (for which buildfarm support is nearly done, but not 
quite). But I don't see one for MinGW. OTOH, Windows is not free (in 
either sense) and setting up a build environment there is quite a bit 
harder than on Unix platforms.

The other platform I've whined about missing for some time is HP-UX, 
especially on PA-RISC. But that's a whole different story.

cheers

andrew

  13. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> — 2007-04-06T14:33:20Z

    Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 
> 
> Larry Rosenman wrote:
>> It doesn't matter as far as MY box is concerned.  I use VMWare
>> extensively
>> in my current $DAYJOB, and I want to be able to test/play with things
>> related
>> to that as well.  The box I'm building will be using the (free) VMWare
>> Server
>> as it's virtualization platform.
>>
>> I'd still like to hear from a Tom Lane or someone else on the project
>> with what
>> X86 or X86_64 OS's we need coverage for.
>>
>>
> 
> VMWare Server is indeed a fine product, which I use extensively.
> 
> I am not sure what our Windows support is like for x86_64. Magnus has
> one for MSVC (for which buildfarm support is nearly done, but not
> quite). But I don't see one for MinGW. OTOH, Windows is not free (in
> either sense) and setting up a build environment there is quite a bit
> harder than on Unix platforms.

yeah improving windows coverage might be a nice thing - some other
random thoughts might include:
*) a linux x86_64 box with say the non-commercial version of icc (intel
c compiler)
*) recent netbsd/amd64
*) solaris 10/x86 - gcc and sun studio
*) maybe solaris express/opensolaris?
*) as said early we don't seem to have any suse/novell coverage at all

though generally the x86/x64_86 coverage seems to be quite good

> 
> The other platform I've whined about missing for some time is HP-UX,
> especially on PA-RISC. But that's a whole different story.

there are more obscure and rare platforms(both in terms  that might be a
win for the buildfarm but HP-UX is really missing.

Stefan

  14. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> — 2007-04-06T15:00:51Z

    On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

>
>
> Larry Rosenman wrote:
>> It doesn't matter as far as MY box is concerned.  I use VMWare extensively
>> in my current $DAYJOB, and I want to be able to test/play with things 
>> related
>> to that as well.  The box I'm building will be using the (free) VMWare 
>> Server
>> as it's virtualization platform.
>> 
>> I'd still like to hear from a Tom Lane or someone else on the project with 
>> what
>> X86 or X86_64 OS's we need coverage for.
>> 
>> 
>
> VMWare Server is indeed a fine product, which I use extensively.
>
> I am not sure what our Windows support is like for x86_64. Magnus has one for 
> MSVC (for which buildfarm support is nearly done, but not quite). But I don't 
> see one for MinGW. OTOH, Windows is not free (in either sense) and setting up 
> a build environment there is quite a bit harder than on Unix platforms.
If someone wants to supply the appropriate licenses, I would be willing to run
windows VM's on this beast.  I don't have the free cash to pony up the licenses.


>
> The other platform I've whined about missing for some time is HP-UX, 
> especially on PA-RISC. But that's a whole different story.
I'm seeing if I can use some HP-UX boxes I have at the office to supply
HP-UX 11.11 PA-800's.  No guarantees at this point, but I am asking.

>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>      choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>      match
>

-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 512-248-2683                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893

  15. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> — 2007-04-06T15:01:32Z

    On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:

> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Larry Rosenman wrote:
>>> It doesn't matter as far as MY box is concerned.  I use VMWare
>>> extensively
>>> in my current $DAYJOB, and I want to be able to test/play with things
>>> related
>>> to that as well.  The box I'm building will be using the (free) VMWare
>>> Server
>>> as it's virtualization platform.
>>>
>>> I'd still like to hear from a Tom Lane or someone else on the project
>>> with what
>>> X86 or X86_64 OS's we need coverage for.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> VMWare Server is indeed a fine product, which I use extensively.
>>
>> I am not sure what our Windows support is like for x86_64. Magnus has
>> one for MSVC (for which buildfarm support is nearly done, but not
>> quite). But I don't see one for MinGW. OTOH, Windows is not free (in
>> either sense) and setting up a build environment there is quite a bit
>> harder than on Unix platforms.
>
> yeah improving windows coverage might be a nice thing - some other
> random thoughts might include:
> *) a linux x86_64 box with say the non-commercial version of icc (intel
> c compiler)
> *) recent netbsd/amd64
> *) solaris 10/x86 - gcc and sun studio
> *) maybe solaris express/opensolaris?
> *) as said early we don't seem to have any suse/novell coverage at all

I'll see what I can do on the NetBSD and Solaris fronts.


>
> though generally the x86/x64_86 coverage seems to be quite good
>
>>
>> The other platform I've whined about missing for some time is HP-UX,
>> especially on PA-RISC. But that's a whole different story.
>
> there are more obscure and rare platforms(both in terms  that might be a
> win for the buildfarm but HP-UX is really missing.
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 512-248-2683                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893

  16. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> — 2007-04-06T15:04:13Z

    >>> VMWare Server is indeed a fine product, which I use extensively.
>>>
>>> I am not sure what our Windows support is like for x86_64. Magnus has
>>> one for MSVC (for which buildfarm support is nearly done, but not
>>> quite). But I don't see one for MinGW. OTOH, Windows is not free (in
>>> either sense) and setting up a build environment there is quite a bit
>>> harder than on Unix platforms.
>>
>> yeah improving windows coverage might be a nice thing - some other
>> random thoughts might include:
>> *) a linux x86_64 box with say the non-commercial version of icc (intel
>> c compiler)
>> *) recent netbsd/amd64
>> *) solaris 10/x86 - gcc and sun studio
>> *) maybe solaris express/opensolaris?
>> *) as said early we don't seem to have any suse/novell coverage at all
> 
> I'll see what I can do on the NetBSD and Solaris fronts.
> 

IMO, the Solaris one is probably more important than NetBSD.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake




-- 

       === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
              http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

  17. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2007-04-06T16:59:29Z

    Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> writes:
> I'd still like to hear from a Tom Lane or someone else on the project with what
> X86 or X86_64 OS's we need coverage for.

FWIW, I think we are more in need of coverage of different configure-option
sets than of OS's per se.

			regards, tom lane

  18. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> — 2007-04-06T18:27:15Z

    
Tom Lane wrote:
> FWIW, I think we are more in need of coverage of different configure-option
> sets than of OS's per se.
>
>   

If someone would like to put together a list of gaps we can see what we 
can do about it.

For anyone who wants the data on what is being built currently, the 
dashboard data is available via  SOAP interface. An example client to 
fetch the data is below.

cheers

andrew

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|#!/usr/bin/perl

use SOAP::Lite;

my $obj = SOAP::Lite
->uri('http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/PGBuildFarm')
->proxy('http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_status_soap.pl')
;

my $data = $obj->get_status->result;

# you now have the data. One example of how to use it is below.

my @fields = qw(
    branch sysname stage status
    operating_system os_version
    compiler compiler_version architecture
    when_ago snapshot build_flags
);

my $head = join (' | ', @fields);
print $head,"\n";

foreach my $datum (@$data)
{
    my $line = join (' | ', @{$datum}{@fields});
    print $line,"\n";
}
|

  19. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> — 2007-04-07T18:29:38Z

    Folks,

> > I'll see what I can do on the NetBSD and Solaris fronts.
>
> IMO, the Solaris one is probably more important than NetBSD.

Solaris is taken care of ... should be online in a week or two.  Sun DBTG Q.A. 
set up in the Sun labs:

Solaris 9 + Sparc + SunCC
Solaris 8 + Sparc + SunCC
Solaris 10 + Sparc + SunCC
Solaris 10 + x86 + SunCC
Solaris 10 + x86 + gcc
Solaris Nevada + Sparc + SunCC
Solaris Nevada + x86 + SunCC
Solaris Nevada + x86 + gcc

... which ought to cover most of the platforms we're interested in from 
Solaris.  The 8 and 9 machines will just build current, but the 10 and Nevada 
machines will build CVS, 8.1, 8.2 and rotationally older versions (once each 
week).  We're building in as many options as we have support for, including 
perl, kerberos (on Nevada), Dtrace (on 8.2) and integer-datetimes.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

  20. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> — 2007-04-08T02:22:58Z

    On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Josh Berkus wrote:

> Folks,
>
>>> I'll see what I can do on the NetBSD and Solaris fronts.
>>
>> IMO, the Solaris one is probably more important than NetBSD.
>
> Solaris is taken care of ... should be online in a week or two.  Sun DBTG Q.A.
> set up in the Sun labs:
>
> Solaris 9 + Sparc + SunCC
> Solaris 8 + Sparc + SunCC
> Solaris 10 + Sparc + SunCC
> Solaris 10 + x86 + SunCC
> Solaris 10 + x86 + gcc
> Solaris Nevada + Sparc + SunCC
> Solaris Nevada + x86 + SunCC
> Solaris Nevada + x86 + gcc
>
> ... which ought to cover most of the platforms we're interested in from
> Solaris.  The 8 and 9 machines will just build current, but the 10 and Nevada
> machines will build CVS, 8.1, 8.2 and rotationally older versions (once each
> week).  We're building in as many options as we have support for, including
> perl, kerberos (on Nevada), Dtrace (on 8.2) and integer-datetimes.
>
Given Sun handling Solaris, my question is:

1) what os(s) do we need more coverage on
2) what collection of options for OS' in 1?

LER


-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 512-248-2683                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893

  21. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Adrian Maier <adrian.maier@gmail.com> — 2007-04-09T16:22:54Z

    >
> > The other platform I've whined about missing for some time is HP-UX,
> > especially on PA-RISC. But that's a whole different story.
>
> there are more obscure and rare platforms(both in terms  that might be a
> win for the buildfarm but HP-UX is really missing.

Hello,

I have access to a PA-RISC machine running HP-UX 11.11. Unfortunately
the machine is on a dedicated network and has no Internet access.

It should be possible to create a mirror of the CVS repository on my machine
(which has access to both the Internet and the dedicated network) so that
the HP-UX server could get the sources from my machine.
But I am not sure whether the results could be reported back to the buildfarm.


Cheers,
Adrian Maier

  22. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> — 2007-04-09T16:38:22Z

    On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Adrian Maier wrote:

>> 
>> > The other platform I've whined about missing for some time is HP-UX,
>> > especially on PA-RISC. But that's a whole different story.
>> 
>> there are more obscure and rare platforms(both in terms  that might be a
>> win for the buildfarm but HP-UX is really missing.
>
> Hello,
>
> I have access to a PA-RISC machine running HP-UX 11.11. Unfortunately
> the machine is on a dedicated network and has no Internet access.
>
> It should be possible to create a mirror of the CVS repository on my machine
> (which has access to both the Internet and the dedicated network) so that
> the HP-UX server could get the sources from my machine.
> But I am not sure whether the results could be reported back to the 
> buildfarm.
>
I think I'll be able to set up my HP-UX 11.11 box here, as soon as it gets
fixed, and assuming either the bundled compiler will work or I can get
GCC on it.

This will take a week or 2, but I have permission now.

(This box can get out to the internet via our proxy).

LER

>
> Cheers,
> Adrian Maier
>
-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 512-248-2683                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893

  23. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> — 2007-04-09T16:45:45Z

    Adrian Maier wrote:
>
> I have access to a PA-RISC machine running HP-UX 11.11. Unfortunately
> the machine is on a dedicated network and has no Internet access.
>
> It should be possible to create a mirror of the CVS repository on my 
> machine
> (which has access to both the Internet and the dedicated network) so that
> the HP-UX server could get the sources from my machine.
> But I am not sure whether the results could be reported back to the 
> buildfarm.
>
>

The buildfarm has support for reporting via a proxy server. An 
appropriately configured instance of squid on the same machine that has 
the CVS mirror should do the trick. Look for BF_PROXY in the buildfarm 
config file.

cheers

andrew

  24. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2007-04-09T17:17:11Z

    Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> writes:
> I think I'll be able to set up my HP-UX 11.11 box here, as soon as it gets
> fixed, and assuming either the bundled compiler will work or I can get
> GCC on it.

If the bundled compiler is still the same non-ANSI-C weakling that was
bundled in HPUX 10, there's no chance.  It would be great to have a
buildfarm member using HP's real ANSI-spec C compiler though.
I still do a lot of my own development on HPUX 10 + gcc, so I'm not
particularly worried about lack of that combination in the buildfarm.

			regards, tom lane

  25. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> — 2007-04-09T18:58:20Z

    On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Tom Lane wrote:

> Larry Rosenman <ler@lerctr.org> writes:
>> I think I'll be able to set up my HP-UX 11.11 box here, as soon as it gets
>> fixed, and assuming either the bundled compiler will work or I can get
>> GCC on it.
>
> If the bundled compiler is still the same non-ANSI-C weakling that was
> bundled in HPUX 10, there's no chance.  It would be great to have a
> buildfarm member using HP's real ANSI-spec C compiler though.
> I still do a lot of my own development on HPUX 10 + gcc, so I'm not
> particularly worried about lack of that combination in the buildfarm.

Looks like we are a DSPP member, so I might be able to get the aCC bundle
for free, and if so, I'll set it up with that.

Thanks,
LER

>
> 			regards, tom lane
>

-- 
Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 512-248-2683                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893

  26. Re: What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?

    Darcy Buskermolen <darcy@ok-connect.com> — 2007-04-19T22:21:09Z

    On Thursday 05 April 2007 16:28, Larry Rosenman wrote:
> I might use that as the base then, since the hardware finishes getting here
> tomorrow.
>
> My question still stands on what OS's we need coverage for.

One I see as missing right now is Solaris 10 X86 with gcc building 64bit 
binaries (we have more than one member building with SunStudio 11)

>
> --
> Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
> Phone: +1 512-248-2683                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
> US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D. Drake
> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 6:18 PM
> To: Larry Rosenman
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
>
> > It will have CentOS 4.4 X86_64 as the base os with VMWare Server running
> > on it.
> >
> >
> >
> > I am willing to run any X86 or X64 OS's in VM's as buildfarm clients.
> >
> >
> >
> > What OS's do we need coverage for?
>
> CentOS5 hits ina  couple days.
>
> J
>
> > LER
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Larry Rosenman                     http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
> >
> > Phone: +1 512-248-2683                 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
> >
> > US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893