Re: [Numpy-discussion] PowerPC testing servers

[Matthew Brett]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 6:53 PM, Sandro Tosi  wrote:
>> A recent post to the wheel-builders mailing list pointed out some
>> links to places providing free PowerPC hosting for open source
>> projects, if they agree to a submitted request:
>
> The debian project has some powerpc machines (and we still build numpy
> on those boxes when i upload a new revision to our archives) and they
> also have hosts dedicated to let debian developers login and debug
> issues with their packages on that architecture. I can sponsor access
> to those machines for some of you, but it is not a place where you can
> host a CI instance.
>
> Just keep it in mind more broadly than powerpc, f.e. these are all the
> archs where numpy was built after the last upload
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=python-numpy=unstable
> (the grayed out archs are the ones non release critical, so packages
> are built as best effort and if missing is not a big deal)

Numpy master now passes all tests on PPC64el.  Still a couple of
remaining failures for PPC64 (big-endian):

* https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/8566
* https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/8325

Cheers,

Matthew
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PowerPC testing servers

[Matthew Brett]

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Ralf Gommers  wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Matthew Brett 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Ralf Gommers 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Matthew Brett 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Ralf Gommers 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Matthew Brett
>> >> > 
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hey,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A recent post to the wheel-builders mailing list pointed out some
>> >> >> links to places providing free PowerPC hosting for open source
>> >> >> projects, if they agree to a submitted request:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/wheel-builders/2017-February/000257.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It would be good to get some testing going on these architectures.
>> >> >> Shall we apply for hosting, as the numpy organization?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Those are bare VMs it seems. Remembering the Buildbot and Mailman
>> >> > horrors, I
>> >> > think we should be very reluctant to taking responsibility for
>> >> > maintaining
>> >> > CI on anything that's not hosted and can be controlled with a simple
>> >> > config
>> >> > file in our repo.
>> >>
>> >> Not sure what you mean about mailman - maybe the Enthought servers we
>> >> didn't have access to?
>> >
>> >
>> > We did have access (for most of the time), it's just that no one is
>> > interested in putting in lots of hours on sysadmin duties.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> For buildbot, I've been maintaining about 12
>> >> crappy old machines for about 7 years now [1] - I'm happy to do the
>> >> same job for a couple of properly hosted PPC machines.
>> >
>> >
>> > That's awesome persistence. The NumPy and SciPy buildbots certainly
>> > weren't
>> > maintained like that, half of them were offline or broken for long
>> > periods
>> > usually.
>>
>> Right - they do need persistence, and to have someone who takes
>> responsibility for them.
>>
>> >>
>> >>  At least we'd
>> >> have some way of testing for these machines, if we get stuck - even if
>> >> that involved spinning up a VM and installing the stuff we needed from
>> >> the command line.
>> >
>> >
>> > I do see the value of testing on more platforms of course. It's just
>> > about
>> > logistics/responsibilities. If you're saying that you'll do the
>> > maintenance,
>> > and want to apply for resources using the NumPy name, that's much better
>> > I
>> > think then making "the numpy devs" collectively responsible.
>>
>> Yes, exactly.  I'm happy to take responsibility for them, I just
>> wanted to make sure that numpy devs could get at them if I'm not
>> around for some reason.
>
>
> In that case, +1 from me!

OK - IBM have kindly given me access to a testing machine, via my own
SSH public key.   Would it make sense to have a Numpy key, with
several people having access to the private key and passphrase?

Cheers,

Matthew
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PowerPC testing servers

[Sandro Tosi]

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Ralf Gommers  wrote:
> Thanks Sandro. It looks like even for the release-critical ones, it's just
> the build that has to succeed and failures are not detected? For example,
> armel is green but has 9 failures:
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=python-numpy=armel=1%3A1.12.0-2=1484889563=0

i made any error in the test suite non-fatal so that we could collect
the errors and then report them back. sadly i'm currently lacking the
time to report all the errors in the archs, will try to get at that
soon

-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SandroTosi
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PowerPC testing servers

[josef . pktd]

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:55 AM, Ralf Gommers 
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Sandro Tosi  wrote:
>
>> > A recent post to the wheel-builders mailing list pointed out some
>> > links to places providing free PowerPC hosting for open source
>> > projects, if they agree to a submitted request:
>>
>> The debian project has some powerpc machines (and we still build numpy
>> on those boxes when i upload a new revision to our archives) and they
>> also have hosts dedicated to let debian developers login and debug
>> issues with their packages on that architecture. I can sponsor access
>> to those machines for some of you, but it is not a place where you can
>> host a CI instance.
>>
>> Just keep it in mind more broadly than powerpc, f.e. these are all the
>> archs where numpy was built after the last upload
>> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=python-numpy;
>> suite=unstable
>> (the grayed out archs are the ones non release critical, so packages
>> are built as best effort and if missing is not a big deal)
>
>
> Thanks Sandro. It looks like even for the release-critical ones, it's just
> the build that has to succeed and failures are not detected? For example,
> armel is green but has 9 failures: https://buildd.debian.org/stat
> us/fetch.php?pkg=python-numpy=armel=1%3A1.12.0-2&
> stamp=1484889563=0
>
> Ralf
>


More general questions on this:

Are there any overviews over which packages in the python for science or
python for data anlaysis areas work correctly on different platforms:
Are there any platforms/processors, besides the standard x32/x54, where
this is important?

for example for statsmodels:
In early releases of statsmodels, maybe 5 to 7 years ago, Yarik and I were
still debugging problems on several machines like ppc and s390x during
Debian testing. Since then I haven't heard much about specific problems.
The current status for statsmodels on Debian machines is pretty mixed. In
several of them some dependencies are not available, in some cases we have
errors that might be caused by errors in dependencies, e.g. cvxopt.

ppc64el test run for statsmodels has a large number of failure
but checking scipy, it looks like it's also not working properly
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=python-
scipy=ppc64el=0.18.1-2=1477075663=0

In those cases it would be impossible to start debugging, if we would have
to debug through the entire dependency chain.

CI-testing for Windows, Apple and Linux for mainly x64 seems to be working
pretty well, with some delays while version incompatibilities are fixed.
But anything that is not in a CI testing setup looks pretty random to me.

(I'm mainly curious what the status for those machines are. I'm not really
eager to create more debugging work, but sometimes failures on a machine
point to code that is "fragile".)

Josef



>
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PowerPC testing servers

[Ralf Gommers]

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Sandro Tosi  wrote:

> > A recent post to the wheel-builders mailing list pointed out some
> > links to places providing free PowerPC hosting for open source
> > projects, if they agree to a submitted request:
>
> The debian project has some powerpc machines (and we still build numpy
> on those boxes when i upload a new revision to our archives) and they
> also have hosts dedicated to let debian developers login and debug
> issues with their packages on that architecture. I can sponsor access
> to those machines for some of you, but it is not a place where you can
> host a CI instance.
>
> Just keep it in mind more broadly than powerpc, f.e. these are all the
> archs where numpy was built after the last upload
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=python-numpy=unstable
> (the grayed out archs are the ones non release critical, so packages
> are built as best effort and if missing is not a big deal)


Thanks Sandro. It looks like even for the release-critical ones, it's just
the build that has to succeed and failures are not detected? For example,
armel is green but has 9 failures:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=python-numpy=armel=1%3A1.12.0-2=1484889563=0

Ralf
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PowerPC testing servers

[Ralf Gommers]

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Matthew Brett 
wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Ralf Gommers 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Matthew Brett 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Ralf Gommers 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Matthew Brett <
> matthew.br...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hey,
> >> >>
> >> >> A recent post to the wheel-builders mailing list pointed out some
> >> >> links to places providing free PowerPC hosting for open source
> >> >> projects, if they agree to a submitted request:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/wheel-builders/2017-
> February/000257.html
> >> >>
> >> >> It would be good to get some testing going on these architectures.
> >> >> Shall we apply for hosting, as the numpy organization?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Those are bare VMs it seems. Remembering the Buildbot and Mailman
> >> > horrors, I
> >> > think we should be very reluctant to taking responsibility for
> >> > maintaining
> >> > CI on anything that's not hosted and can be controlled with a simple
> >> > config
> >> > file in our repo.
> >>
> >> Not sure what you mean about mailman - maybe the Enthought servers we
> >> didn't have access to?
> >
> >
> > We did have access (for most of the time), it's just that no one is
> > interested in putting in lots of hours on sysadmin duties.
> >
> >>
> >> For buildbot, I've been maintaining about 12
> >> crappy old machines for about 7 years now [1] - I'm happy to do the
> >> same job for a couple of properly hosted PPC machines.
> >
> >
> > That's awesome persistence. The NumPy and SciPy buildbots certainly
> weren't
> > maintained like that, half of them were offline or broken for long
> periods
> > usually.
>
> Right - they do need persistence, and to have someone who takes
> responsibility for them.
>
> >>
> >>  At least we'd
> >> have some way of testing for these machines, if we get stuck - even if
> >> that involved spinning up a VM and installing the stuff we needed from
> >> the command line.
> >
> >
> > I do see the value of testing on more platforms of course. It's just
> about
> > logistics/responsibilities. If you're saying that you'll do the
> maintenance,
> > and want to apply for resources using the NumPy name, that's much better
> I
> > think then making "the numpy devs" collectively responsible.
>
> Yes, exactly.  I'm happy to take responsibility for them, I just
> wanted to make sure that numpy devs could get at them if I'm not
> around for some reason.
>

In that case, +1 from me!

Ralf
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PowerPC testing servers

[Sandro Tosi]

> A recent post to the wheel-builders mailing list pointed out some
> links to places providing free PowerPC hosting for open source
> projects, if they agree to a submitted request:

The debian project has some powerpc machines (and we still build numpy
on those boxes when i upload a new revision to our archives) and they
also have hosts dedicated to let debian developers login and debug
issues with their packages on that architecture. I can sponsor access
to those machines for some of you, but it is not a place where you can
host a CI instance.

Just keep it in mind more broadly than powerpc, f.e. these are all the
archs where numpy was built after the last upload
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=python-numpy=unstable
(the grayed out archs are the ones non release critical, so packages
are built as best effort and if missing is not a big deal)

-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
G+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+SandroTosi
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PowerPC testing servers

[Matthew Brett]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Ralf Gommers  wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Matthew Brett 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Ralf Gommers 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Matthew Brett 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hey,
>> >>
>> >> A recent post to the wheel-builders mailing list pointed out some
>> >> links to places providing free PowerPC hosting for open source
>> >> projects, if they agree to a submitted request:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/wheel-builders/2017-February/000257.html
>> >>
>> >> It would be good to get some testing going on these architectures.
>> >> Shall we apply for hosting, as the numpy organization?
>> >
>> >
>> > Those are bare VMs it seems. Remembering the Buildbot and Mailman
>> > horrors, I
>> > think we should be very reluctant to taking responsibility for
>> > maintaining
>> > CI on anything that's not hosted and can be controlled with a simple
>> > config
>> > file in our repo.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean about mailman - maybe the Enthought servers we
>> didn't have access to?
>
>
> We did have access (for most of the time), it's just that no one is
> interested in putting in lots of hours on sysadmin duties.
>
>>
>> For buildbot, I've been maintaining about 12
>> crappy old machines for about 7 years now [1] - I'm happy to do the
>> same job for a couple of properly hosted PPC machines.
>
>
> That's awesome persistence. The NumPy and SciPy buildbots certainly weren't
> maintained like that, half of them were offline or broken for long periods
> usually.

Right - they do need persistence, and to have someone who takes
responsibility for them.

>>
>>  At least we'd
>> have some way of testing for these machines, if we get stuck - even if
>> that involved spinning up a VM and installing the stuff we needed from
>> the command line.
>
>
> I do see the value of testing on more platforms of course. It's just about
> logistics/responsibilities. If you're saying that you'll do the maintenance,
> and want to apply for resources using the NumPy name, that's much better I
> think then making "the numpy devs" collectively responsible.

Yes, exactly.  I'm happy to take responsibility for them, I just
wanted to make sure that numpy devs could get at them if I'm not
around for some reason.

Matthew
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PowerPC testing servers

[Ralf Gommers]

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:45 AM, Matthew Brett 
wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Ralf Gommers 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Matthew Brett 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey,
> >>
> >> A recent post to the wheel-builders mailing list pointed out some
> >> links to places providing free PowerPC hosting for open source
> >> projects, if they agree to a submitted request:
> >>
> >> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/wheel-builders/2017-
> February/000257.html
> >>
> >> It would be good to get some testing going on these architectures.
> >> Shall we apply for hosting, as the numpy organization?
> >
> >
> > Those are bare VMs it seems. Remembering the Buildbot and Mailman
> horrors, I
> > think we should be very reluctant to taking responsibility for
> maintaining
> > CI on anything that's not hosted and can be controlled with a simple
> config
> > file in our repo.
>
> Not sure what you mean about mailman - maybe the Enthought servers we
> didn't have access to?


We did have access (for most of the time), it's just that no one is
interested in putting in lots of hours on sysadmin duties.


> For buildbot, I've been maintaining about 12
> crappy old machines for about 7 years now [1] - I'm happy to do the
> same job for a couple of properly hosted PPC machines.


That's awesome persistence. The NumPy and SciPy buildbots certainly weren't
maintained like that, half of them were offline or broken for long periods
usually.


>  At least we'd
> have some way of testing for these machines, if we get stuck - even if
> that involved spinning up a VM and installing the stuff we needed from
> the command line.
>

I do see the value of testing on more platforms of course. It's just about
logistics/responsibilities. If you're saying that you'll do the
maintenance, and want to apply for resources using the NumPy name, that's
much better I think then making "the numpy devs" collectively responsible.

Ralf
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PowerPC testing servers

[Matthew Brett]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Ralf Gommers  wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Matthew Brett 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> A recent post to the wheel-builders mailing list pointed out some
>> links to places providing free PowerPC hosting for open source
>> projects, if they agree to a submitted request:
>>
>> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/wheel-builders/2017-February/000257.html
>>
>> It would be good to get some testing going on these architectures.
>> Shall we apply for hosting, as the numpy organization?
>
>
> Those are bare VMs it seems. Remembering the Buildbot and Mailman horrors, I
> think we should be very reluctant to taking responsibility for maintaining
> CI on anything that's not hosted and can be controlled with a simple config
> file in our repo.

Not sure what you mean about mailman - maybe the Enthought servers we
didn't have access to?  For buildbot, I've been maintaining about 12
crappy old machines for about 7 years now [1] - I'm happy to do the
same job for a couple of properly hosted PPC machines.   At least we'd
have some way of testing for these machines, if we get stuck - even if
that involved spinning up a VM and installing the stuff we needed from
the command line.

Cheers,

Matthew

[1] http://nipy.bic.berkeley.edu/buildslaves
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PowerPC testing servers

[Ralf Gommers]

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Matthew Brett 
wrote:

> Hey,
>
> A recent post to the wheel-builders mailing list pointed out some
> links to places providing free PowerPC hosting for open source
> projects, if they agree to a submitted request:
>
> https://mail.python.org/pipermail/wheel-builders/2017-February/000257.html
>
> It would be good to get some testing going on these architectures.
> Shall we apply for hosting, as the numpy organization?
>

Those are bare VMs it seems. Remembering the Buildbot and Mailman horrors,
I think we should be very reluctant to taking responsibility for
maintaining CI on anything that's not hosted and can be controlled with a
simple config file in our repo.

Ralf
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion