Hi, Antonio, LAVA team
Could you please help to review and deploy the following two changes?
https://staging.review.linaro.org/#/c/507/ https://staging.review.linaro.org/#/c/508/
especially the first change on rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a.conf, we want to run jobs for release during the weekend.
Hi, Antonio
Thanks for the help. http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87680/log_file is booted up with the latest build#219.
But one thing I noticed that, both rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_02 and rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04 are on fastmodels02.localdomain, could you help to disable rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04? since when run two instances on one node at the same time, it may cause the adb problem.
Thanks, Yongqin Liu
On 22 November 2013 22:38, YongQin Liu yongqin.liu@linaro.org wrote:
Hi, Antonio, LAVA team
Could you please help to review and deploy the following two changes?
https://staging.review.linaro.org/#/c/507/ https://staging.review.linaro.org/#/c/508/
especially the first change on rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a.conf, we want to run jobs for release during the weekend.
-- Thanks, Yongqin Liu
#mailing list linaro-android@lists.linaro.org linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-android linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-validation
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:54:40AM +0800, Yongqin Liu wrote:
Hi, Antonio
Thanks for the help. http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87680/log_file is booted up with the latest build#219.
But one thing I noticed that, both rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_02 and rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04 are on fastmodels02.localdomain, could you help to disable rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04? since when run two instances on one node at the same time, it may cause the adb problem.
There are fastmodels on the same machine (which may also cause the same problem?) so I doubt if take _04 offline will make any difference.
Hi guys,
we should have setup with one model per HW instance. (Otherwise our tests will not run reliably). Guys help us getting that up and running again, it is release week.
Br,
--jakub
On 24 November 2013 14:52, Antonio Terceiro antonio.terceiro@linaro.orgwrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:54:40AM +0800, Yongqin Liu wrote:
Hi, Antonio
Thanks for the help. http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87680/log_file is booted up
with
the latest build#219.
But one thing I noticed that, both rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_02 and rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04 are on fastmodels02.localdomain, could you help to disable rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04? since when run two instances on one node at the same time, it may cause
the
adb problem.
There are fastmodels on the same machine (which may also cause the same problem?) so I doubt if take _04 offline will make any difference. -- Antonio Terceiro Software Engineer - Linaro http://www.linaro.org
Hi,
The models are currently stable. Here are the jobs for release. Most of it has completed: http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87699 https://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87700 https://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87701
Submitted one more with partial test from job 87700: http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/88187
Its okay to have multiple models per machine but we need to have only one model running Android per machine which has proven to be stable. If we run Android on more than one model per machine then it results in adb errors. Hence Yongqin requested to take _04 offline.
Currently juice is the only project where Android is booted extensively on "rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a" models. It is preferred to have only one such model per H/W instance to have the setup stable for Android.
Regards, Vishal
On 25 November 2013 15:01, Jakub Pavelek jakub.pavelek@linaro.org wrote:
Hi guys,
we should have setup with one model per HW instance. (Otherwise our tests will not run reliably). Guys help us getting that up and running again, it is release week.
Br,
--jakub
On 24 November 2013 14:52, Antonio Terceiro antonio.terceiro@linaro.orgwrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:54:40AM +0800, Yongqin Liu wrote:
Hi, Antonio
Thanks for the help. http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87680/log_file is booted up
with
the latest build#219.
But one thing I noticed that, both rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_02 and rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04 are on fastmodels02.localdomain, could you help to disable rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04? since when run two instances on one node at the same time, it may cause
the
adb problem.
There are fastmodels on the same machine (which may also cause the same problem?) so I doubt if take _04 offline will make any difference. -- Antonio Terceiro Software Engineer - Linaro http://www.linaro.org
OK - for the moment, I've off-lined 04. Longer term we need a better solution.
I think that the problem is that adb is buggy. It is clearly *supposed* to work with multiple devices simultaneously, otherwise why have it running as a daemon?
Course of action: * We can patch around it by having an "android" device tag, which will be guaranteed to only have one instance per LAVA worker node. * We should also investigate if there is an adb update that fixes the simultaneous connection issue.
Thanks
Dave
On 25 Nov 2013, at 09:47, Vishal Bhoj vishal.bhoj@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
The models are currently stable. Here are the jobs for release. Most of it has completed: http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87699 https://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87700 https://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87701
Submitted one more with partial test from job 87700: http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/88187
Its okay to have multiple models per machine but we need to have only one model running Android per machine which has proven to be stable. If we run Android on more than one model per machine then it results in adb errors. Hence Yongqin requested to take _04 offline.
Currently juice is the only project where Android is booted extensively on "rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a" models. It is preferred to have only one such model per H/W instance to have the setup stable for Android.
Regards, Vishal
On 25 November 2013 15:01, Jakub Pavelek jakub.pavelek@linaro.org wrote: Hi guys,
we should have setup with one model per HW instance. (Otherwise our tests will not run reliably). Guys help us getting that up and running again, it is release week.
Br,
--jakub
On 24 November 2013 14:52, Antonio Terceiro antonio.terceiro@linaro.org wrote: On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:54:40AM +0800, Yongqin Liu wrote:
Hi, Antonio
Thanks for the help. http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87680/log_file is booted up with the latest build#219.
But one thing I noticed that, both rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_02 and rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04 are on fastmodels02.localdomain, could you help to disable rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04? since when run two instances on one node at the same time, it may cause the adb problem.
There are fastmodels on the same machine (which may also cause the same problem?) so I doubt if take _04 offline will make any difference. -- Antonio Terceiro Software Engineer - Linaro http://www.linaro.org
linaro-validation mailing list linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
On 25 Nov 2013, at 10:26, Dave Pigott dave.pigott@linaro.org wrote:
OK - for the moment, I've off-lined 04. Longer term we need a better solution.
I think that the problem is that adb is buggy. It is clearly *supposed* to work with multiple devices simultaneously, otherwise why have it running as a daemon?
Course of action:
- We can patch around it by having an "android" device tag, which will be guaranteed to only have one instance per LAVA worker node.
- We should also investigate if there is an adb update that fixes the simultaneous connection issue.
http://developer.android.com/tools/help/adb.html
This seems to imply that for any version of android after 4.2.2 (JellyBean) we should be using 1.0.31. We're using 1.0.29, the default that ships with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. The first time 1.0.31 was shipped with Ubuntu was in raring.
So perhaps we should look at whether we can get 1.0.31 running on 12.04, and see if it fixes any of the problems we're seeing. The documentation certainly suggests that running multiple adb sessions is supported.
Just a note - we also see issues like this on non fast models devices.
Dave
Thanks
Dave
On 25 Nov 2013, at 09:47, Vishal Bhoj vishal.bhoj@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
The models are currently stable. Here are the jobs for release. Most of it has completed: http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87699 https://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87700 https://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87701
Submitted one more with partial test from job 87700: http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/88187
Its okay to have multiple models per machine but we need to have only one model running Android per machine which has proven to be stable. If we run Android on more than one model per machine then it results in adb errors. Hence Yongqin requested to take _04 offline.
Currently juice is the only project where Android is booted extensively on "rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a" models. It is preferred to have only one such model per H/W instance to have the setup stable for Android.
Regards, Vishal
On 25 November 2013 15:01, Jakub Pavelek jakub.pavelek@linaro.org wrote: Hi guys,
we should have setup with one model per HW instance. (Otherwise our tests will not run reliably). Guys help us getting that up and running again, it is release week.
Br,
--jakub
On 24 November 2013 14:52, Antonio Terceiro antonio.terceiro@linaro.org wrote: On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:54:40AM +0800, Yongqin Liu wrote:
Hi, Antonio
Thanks for the help. http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87680/log_file is booted up with the latest build#219.
But one thing I noticed that, both rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_02 and rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04 are on fastmodels02.localdomain, could you help to disable rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04? since when run two instances on one node at the same time, it may cause the adb problem.
There are fastmodels on the same machine (which may also cause the same problem?) so I doubt if take _04 offline will make any difference. -- Antonio Terceiro Software Engineer - Linaro http://www.linaro.org
linaro-validation mailing list linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
Hi Dave,
On 26 November 2013 19:10, Dave Pigott dave.pigott@linaro.org wrote:
On 25 Nov 2013, at 10:26, Dave Pigott dave.pigott@linaro.org wrote:
OK - for the moment, I've off-lined 04. Longer term we need a better solution.
I think that the problem is that adb is buggy. It is clearly *supposed* to work with multiple devices simultaneously, otherwise why have it running as a daemon?
Course of action:
- We can patch around it by having an "android" device tag, which will be
guaranteed to only have one instance per LAVA worker node.
- We should also investigate if there is an adb update that fixes the
simultaneous connection issue.
http://developer.android.com/tools/help/adb.html
This seems to imply that for any version of android after 4.2.2 (JellyBean) we should be using 1.0.31. We're using 1.0.29, the default that ships with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. The first time 1.0.31 was shipped with Ubuntu was in raring.
Latest adb is available as part of Android SDK and should work on any Ubuntu version: http://dl.google.com/android/android-sdk_r22.3-linux.tgz
Installing adb along with SDK may be tedious with the way we setup lava-dispatcher. It involves running
So perhaps we should look at whether we can get 1.0.31 running on 12.04, and see if it fixes any of the problems we're seeing. The documentation certainly suggests that running multiple adb sessions is supported.
It should work out of the box so we should download the package and
install it.
Just a note - we also see issues like this on non fast models devices.
We have tried fixing this issue previously as well. This bug is difficult to reproduce and last time we had found out that it was failing due to a memory corruption. Is it possible to "export ADB_TRACE=all" in the dispatcher setup so that we get the logs whenever we see this failure.
This merge request will at least help us recover from the failure easily instead of waiting till someone reports it: https://staging.review.linaro.org/#/c/508/
Dave
Thanks
Dave
On 25 Nov 2013, at 09:47, Vishal Bhoj vishal.bhoj@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
The models are currently stable. Here are the jobs for release. Most of it has completed: http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87699 https://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87700 https://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87701
Submitted one more with partial test from job 87700: http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/88187
Its okay to have multiple models per machine but we need to have only one model running Android per machine which has proven to be stable. If we run Android on more than one model per machine then it results in adb errors. Hence Yongqin requested to take _04 offline.
Currently juice is the only project where Android is booted extensively on "rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a" models. It is preferred to have only one such model per H/W instance to have the setup stable for Android.
Regards, Vishal
On 25 November 2013 15:01, Jakub Pavelek jakub.pavelek@linaro.org wrote:
Hi guys,
we should have setup with one model per HW instance. (Otherwise our tests will not run reliably). Guys help us getting that up and running again, it is release week.
Br,
--jakub
On 24 November 2013 14:52, Antonio Terceiro antonio.terceiro@linaro.orgwrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:54:40AM +0800, Yongqin Liu wrote:
Hi, Antonio
Thanks for the help. http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87680/log_file is booted
up with
the latest build#219.
But one thing I noticed that, both rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_02 and rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04 are on fastmodels02.localdomain, could you help to disable rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04? since when run two instances on one node at the same time, it may
cause the
adb problem.
There are fastmodels on the same machine (which may also cause the same problem?) so I doubt if take _04 offline will make any difference. -- Antonio Terceiro Software Engineer - Linaro http://www.linaro.org
linaro-validation mailing list linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
Hi Vishal,
Comments in line:
On 26 Nov 2013, at 14:01, Vishal Bhoj vishal.bhoj@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Dave,
On 26 November 2013 19:10, Dave Pigott dave.pigott@linaro.org wrote:
On 25 Nov 2013, at 10:26, Dave Pigott dave.pigott@linaro.org wrote:
OK - for the moment, I've off-lined 04. Longer term we need a better solution.
I think that the problem is that adb is buggy. It is clearly *supposed* to work with multiple devices simultaneously, otherwise why have it running as a daemon?
Course of action:
- We can patch around it by having an "android" device tag, which will be guaranteed to only have one instance per LAVA worker node.
- We should also investigate if there is an adb update that fixes the simultaneous connection issue.
http://developer.android.com/tools/help/adb.html
This seems to imply that for any version of android after 4.2.2 (JellyBean) we should be using 1.0.31. We're using 1.0.29, the default that ships with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. The first time 1.0.31 was shipped with Ubuntu was in raring. Latest adb is available as part of Android SDK and should work on any Ubuntu version: http://dl.google.com/android/android-sdk_r22.3-linux.tgz
Installing adb along with SDK may be tedious with the way we setup lava-dispatcher. It involves running
So perhaps we should look at whether we can get 1.0.31 running on 12.04, and see if it fixes any of the problems we're seeing. The documentation certainly suggests that running multiple adb sessions is supported.
It should work out of the box so we should download the package and install it.
We use salt to control the server configuration, so we'll need to update the salt repo (lava-lab) to support this.
Just a note - we also see issues like this on non fast models devices.
We have tried fixing this issue previously as well. This bug is difficult to reproduce and last time we had found out that it was failing due to a memory corruption. Is it possible to "export ADB_TRACE=all" in the dispatcher setup so that we get the logs whenever we see this failure.
Yeah - good plan. Will add that to the dispatcher. I'll open a bug for it.
This merge request will at least help us recover from the failure easily instead of waiting till someone reports it: https://staging.review.linaro.org/#/c/508/
Will review tomorrow (I'm officially out this afternoon)
Dave
Dave
Thanks
Dave
On 25 Nov 2013, at 09:47, Vishal Bhoj vishal.bhoj@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
The models are currently stable. Here are the jobs for release. Most of it has completed: http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87699 https://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87700 https://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87701
Submitted one more with partial test from job 87700: http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/88187
Its okay to have multiple models per machine but we need to have only one model running Android per machine which has proven to be stable. If we run Android on more than one model per machine then it results in adb errors. Hence Yongqin requested to take _04 offline.
Currently juice is the only project where Android is booted extensively on "rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a" models. It is preferred to have only one such model per H/W instance to have the setup stable for Android.
Regards, Vishal
On 25 November 2013 15:01, Jakub Pavelek jakub.pavelek@linaro.org wrote: Hi guys,
we should have setup with one model per HW instance. (Otherwise our tests will not run reliably). Guys help us getting that up and running again, it is release week.
Br,
--jakub
On 24 November 2013 14:52, Antonio Terceiro antonio.terceiro@linaro.org wrote: On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:54:40AM +0800, Yongqin Liu wrote:
Hi, Antonio
Thanks for the help. http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87680/log_file is booted up with the latest build#219.
But one thing I noticed that, both rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_02 and rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04 are on fastmodels02.localdomain, could you help to disable rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04? since when run two instances on one node at the same time, it may cause the adb problem.
There are fastmodels on the same machine (which may also cause the same problem?) so I doubt if take _04 offline will make any difference. -- Antonio Terceiro Software Engineer - Linaro http://www.linaro.org
linaro-validation mailing list linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
On 26 Nov 2013, at 15:41, Dave Pigott dave.pigott@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Vishal,
Comments in line:
On 26 Nov 2013, at 14:01, Vishal Bhoj vishal.bhoj@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Dave,
On 26 November 2013 19:10, Dave Pigott dave.pigott@linaro.org wrote:
On 25 Nov 2013, at 10:26, Dave Pigott dave.pigott@linaro.org wrote:
OK - for the moment, I've off-lined 04. Longer term we need a better solution.
I think that the problem is that adb is buggy. It is clearly *supposed* to work with multiple devices simultaneously, otherwise why have it running as a daemon?
Course of action:
- We can patch around it by having an "android" device tag, which will be guaranteed to only have one instance per LAVA worker node.
- We should also investigate if there is an adb update that fixes the simultaneous connection issue.
http://developer.android.com/tools/help/adb.html
This seems to imply that for any version of android after 4.2.2 (JellyBean) we should be using 1.0.31. We're using 1.0.29, the default that ships with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. The first time 1.0.31 was shipped with Ubuntu was in raring. Latest adb is available as part of Android SDK and should work on any Ubuntu version: http://dl.google.com/android/android-sdk_r22.3-linux.tgz
Installing adb along with SDK may be tedious with the way we setup lava-dispatcher. It involves running
So perhaps we should look at whether we can get 1.0.31 running on 12.04, and see if it fixes any of the problems we're seeing. The documentation certainly suggests that running multiple adb sessions is supported.
It should work out of the box so we should download the package and install it.
We use salt to control the server configuration, so we'll need to update the salt repo (lava-lab) to support this.
Just a note - we also see issues like this on non fast models devices.
We have tried fixing this issue previously as well. This bug is difficult to reproduce and last time we had found out that it was failing due to a memory corruption. Is it possible to "export ADB_TRACE=all" in the dispatcher setup so that we get the logs whenever we see this failure.
Yeah - good plan. Will add that to the dispatcher. I'll open a bug for it.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/lava-dispatcher/+bug/1255137
Although we can probably do this by adding it to /etc/profile or some such.
Dave
This merge request will at least help us recover from the failure easily instead of waiting till someone reports it: https://staging.review.linaro.org/#/c/508/
Will review tomorrow (I'm officially out this afternoon)
Dave
Dave
Thanks
Dave
On 25 Nov 2013, at 09:47, Vishal Bhoj vishal.bhoj@linaro.org wrote:
Hi,
The models are currently stable. Here are the jobs for release. Most of it has completed: http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87699 https://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87700 https://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87701
Submitted one more with partial test from job 87700: http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/88187
Its okay to have multiple models per machine but we need to have only one model running Android per machine which has proven to be stable. If we run Android on more than one model per machine then it results in adb errors. Hence Yongqin requested to take _04 offline.
Currently juice is the only project where Android is booted extensively on "rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a" models. It is preferred to have only one such model per H/W instance to have the setup stable for Android.
Regards, Vishal
On 25 November 2013 15:01, Jakub Pavelek jakub.pavelek@linaro.org wrote: Hi guys,
we should have setup with one model per HW instance. (Otherwise our tests will not run reliably). Guys help us getting that up and running again, it is release week.
Br,
--jakub
On 24 November 2013 14:52, Antonio Terceiro antonio.terceiro@linaro.org wrote: On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:54:40AM +0800, Yongqin Liu wrote:
Hi, Antonio
Thanks for the help. http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87680/log_file is booted up with the latest build#219.
But one thing I noticed that, both rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_02 and rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04 are on fastmodels02.localdomain, could you help to disable rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04? since when run two instances on one node at the same time, it may cause the adb problem.
There are fastmodels on the same machine (which may also cause the same problem?) so I doubt if take _04 offline will make any difference. -- Antonio Terceiro Software Engineer - Linaro http://www.linaro.org
linaro-validation mailing list linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 01:40:35PM +0000, Dave Pigott wrote:
On 25 Nov 2013, at 10:26, Dave Pigott dave.pigott@linaro.org wrote:
OK - for the moment, I've off-lined 04. Longer term we need a better solution.
I think that the problem is that adb is buggy. It is clearly *supposed* to work with multiple devices simultaneously, otherwise why have it running as a daemon?
Course of action:
- We can patch around it by having an "android" device tag, which will be guaranteed to only have one instance per LAVA worker node.
- We should also investigate if there is an adb update that fixes the simultaneous connection issue.
http://developer.android.com/tools/help/adb.html
This seems to imply that for any version of android after 4.2.2 (JellyBean) we should be using 1.0.31. We're using 1.0.29, the default that ships with Ubuntu 12.04 LTS. The first time 1.0.31 was shipped with Ubuntu was in raring.
So perhaps we should look at whether we can get 1.0.31 running on 12.04, and see if it fixes any of the problems we're seeing. The documentation certainly suggests that running multiple adb sessions is supported.
We probably want to backport a newer adb package to precise, then.
Jakub, how many total models do you need? Do we need more HW?
Best regards, Alan Bennett On Nov 25, 2013 1:38 AM, "Jakub Pavelek" jakub.pavelek@linaro.org wrote:
Hi guys,
we should have setup with one model per HW instance. (Otherwise our tests will not run reliably). Guys help us getting that up and running again, it is release week.
Br,
--jakub
On 24 November 2013 14:52, Antonio Terceiro antonio.terceiro@linaro.orgwrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:54:40AM +0800, Yongqin Liu wrote:
Hi, Antonio
Thanks for the help. http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87680/log_file is booted up
with
the latest build#219.
But one thing I noticed that, both rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_02 and rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04 are on fastmodels02.localdomain, could you help to disable rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04? since when run two instances on one node at the same time, it may cause
the
adb problem.
There are fastmodels on the same machine (which may also cause the same problem?) so I doubt if take _04 offline will make any difference. -- Antonio Terceiro Software Engineer - Linaro http://www.linaro.org
linaro-validation mailing list linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
Hi guys,
old request was two dedicated hosts to run two models. That should be in place, but sometimes we notice other instances of models being run on them, not too happy (since we have a queue of jobs to run on them 24/7 ourselves).
Honestly, I think having 3 days go for a test run is ridiculous and it would be still cost-efficient to run the huge test job on four host instances. Would be faster to spot issues and do a re-run if we could squeeze the test run into 24 hours.
You input is appreciated, let us know
Br,
--jakub
On 25 November 2013 17:12, Alan Bennett alan.bennett@linaro.org wrote:
Jakub, how many total models do you need? Do we need more HW?
Best regards, Alan Bennett On Nov 25, 2013 1:38 AM, "Jakub Pavelek" jakub.pavelek@linaro.org wrote:
Hi guys,
we should have setup with one model per HW instance. (Otherwise our tests will not run reliably). Guys help us getting that up and running again, it is release week.
Br,
--jakub
On 24 November 2013 14:52, Antonio Terceiro antonio.terceiro@linaro.orgwrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:54:40AM +0800, Yongqin Liu wrote:
Hi, Antonio
Thanks for the help. http://validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/87680/log_file is booted
up with
the latest build#219.
But one thing I noticed that, both rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_02 and rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04 are on fastmodels02.localdomain, could you help to disable rtsm_fvp_base-aemv8a_04? since when run two instances on one node at the same time, it may
cause the
adb problem.
There are fastmodels on the same machine (which may also cause the same problem?) so I doubt if take _04 offline will make any difference. -- Antonio Terceiro Software Engineer - Linaro http://www.linaro.org
linaro-validation mailing list linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org
-
Alan Bennett -
Antonio Terceiro -
Dave Pigott -
Jakub Pavelek -
Vishal Bhoj -
YongQin Liu