:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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 +
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%)
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
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
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
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
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Matthew O'Connor wrote:
Devrim G??nd??z 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
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
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
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
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
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
--- Original Message ---
From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 06/04/07, 15:33:20
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] What X86/X64 OS's do we need coverage for?
yeah improving windows coverage might be a nice thing - some other
I'm awaiting
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.
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
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.
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
Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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 =
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.
---(end of
27 matches
Mail list logo
