Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Most Common, Annoying Issue When Benchmarking Ubuntu On Many Systems

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Most Common, Annoying Issue When Benchmarking Ubuntu On Many Systems

    Phoronix: The Most Common, Annoying Issue When Benchmarking Ubuntu On Many Systems

    When constantly benchmarking dozens of systems daily in a fully-automated manner there's one issue particularly on Ubuntu that's proved over the past few months to be most annoying.....

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...on-GRUB2-Issue

  • #2
    Does Fedora or OpenSUSE have some equivalent to PPAs? I assume it's the easy install of development branches of software through PPAs that makes Ubuntu very attractive.

    Comment


    • #3
      So just change it...

      Originally posted by phoronix View Post
      Phoronix: The Most Common, Annoying Issue When Benchmarking Ubuntu On Many Systems

      When constantly benchmarking dozens of systems daily in a fully-automated manner there's one issue particularly on Ubuntu that's proved over the past few months to be most annoying.....

      http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...on-GRUB2-Issue
      I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. Just change it on your farm by default and have PTS setup to either A) automatically fix the value, or B) warn about it and exit or continue.

      Looking at my linux mint qiana system, I do see this used in the /etc/grub.d/00_header, but it only sets it to --1. But maybe it would be enough to do:

      grub-editenv set recordfail=0

      before a run, which would let the system reboot it if crashes, but hopefully not change it useless default for headless systems. But Ubuntu isn't designed for headless systems, so I think you're just stuck with this annoyance unless you fix it in your own installs by default. Puppet/chef/cfengine would all be answers to this issue in terms of automating it.

      John

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by xeekei View Post
        Does Fedora or OpenSUSE have some equivalent to PPAs? I assume it's the easy install of development branches of software through PPAs that makes Ubuntu very attractive.
        Having tried Ubuntu and Arch now, I find Arch's AUR system far easier to install development packages. Also, openSUSE is generally quite easy, with one click installs available for a large selection of software. Honestly, about the only reason to stick with Ubuntu now is simply because of familiarity.
        Last edited by andyprough; 26 March 2015, 04:39 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          You don't have to set it to zero. For a Ubuntu desktop headless machine that I want always to boot, I set:

          Code:
          GRUB_RECORDFAIL_TIMEOUT=5
          I do this only once, there's no need or reason to revert to the default setting.

          The Ubuntu default makes sense for most desktop users.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by l8gravely View Post
            I'm not sure why this is such a big deal. Just change it on your farm by default and have PTS setup to either A) automatically fix the value, or B) warn about it and exit or continue.

            Looking at my linux mint qiana system, I do see this used in the /etc/grub.d/00_header, but it only sets it to --1. But maybe it would be enough to do:

            grub-editenv set recordfail=0

            before a run, which would let the system reboot it if crashes, but hopefully not change it useless default for headless systems. But Ubuntu isn't designed for headless systems, so I think you're just stuck with this annoyance unless you fix it in your own installs by default. Puppet/chef/cfengine would all be answers to this issue in terms of automating it.

            John
            Wanting a seamless solution where ideally will be done automatically to fix the value but without caution not wanting to bork with users GRUB confs.
            Michael Larabel
            https://www.michaellarabel.com/

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by xeekei View Post
              Does Fedora or OpenSUSE have some equivalent to PPAs? I assume it's the easy install of development branches of software through PPAs that makes Ubuntu very attractive.
              Of course. openSUSE has Open Build Service repositories. I think the equivalent on Fedora are copr repositories (although OBS can use Fedora and Ubuntu as build targets as well).

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by xeekei View Post
                Does Fedora or OpenSUSE have some equivalent to PPAs? I assume it's the easy install of development branches of software through PPAs that makes Ubuntu very attractive.
                Yes, and there are Fedora and openSUSE systems in the farm.... The Ubuntu systems are largely for having reliable daily Clang and Linux kernel packages that I've always had good success with, they're kept around for a few days if others want to reproduce something off them, etc. Any other distribution with splendid daily kernel and Clang mainline/vanilla builds?
                Michael Larabel
                https://www.michaellarabel.com/

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Michael View Post
                  Yes, and there are Fedora and openSUSE systems in the farm.... The Ubuntu systems are largely for having reliable daily Clang and Linux kernel packages that I've always had good success with, they're kept around for a few days if others want to reproduce something off them, etc. Any other distribution with splendid daily kernel and Clang mainline/vanilla builds?
                  I know you've been over why you don't want to use Arch for benchmarking and testing, but wring PKGBUILDs is very easy. And then you can build your own packages straight from upstream with the Arch Build System. Maybe someone in the AUR already has, but if you learn to write PKGBUILDs you'd be essentially limitless.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by xeekei View Post
                    I know you've been over why you don't want to use Arch for benchmarking and testing, but wring PKGBUILDs is very easy. And then you can build your own packages straight from upstream with the Arch Build System. Maybe someone in the AUR already has, but if you learn to write PKGBUILDs you'd be essentially limitless.
                    I do use Arch, including a few systems in this farm, but for Clang/kernel builds it's awfully convenient having a pre-built binary publicly available I can simply point at that can answer most questions..... i.e. responses of "you must have configured something wrong" or "what config file did you use?" etc.... That routinely come up over the years. With having a publicly available build, it makes most of these questions answerable without my manual intervention and allows others to reproduce the tests exactly.
                    Michael Larabel
                    https://www.michaellarabel.com/

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X