qemu-system-arm on my amd64 laptop seems quite a bit slower than
building on a cortex a9 imx.
I don't have numbers for qemu but on real hardware a few weeks ago:
bbb with nfs root, make build 25 hrs 31 min
cubox with usb flash root, make build 9 hrs 21 min
At least part of the bbb slowdown is lik
Building on top of Qemu with dpb on my 2013 Macbook Pro with SSD doesn’t seem
fantastic at the moment either. The single core-ness on OpenBSD might be a
little to blame but the system usage is ~50% while building. Might be the
virtio drivers?
I’ll see about snapshotting the filesystem 8x and ru
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 9:30 PM, Philip Cheney wrote:
> So far, the only issue I've had building anything on arm is the speed
> difference. The limited hardware really does take its toll: limited RAM,
> extremely slow IO, heat issues with continuous high load on fanless
> systems. Building the en
Makes sense. Well, everything except for the memory functions, but I can treat
that as voodoo.
--
Edwin (on the move)
> On Jun 8, 2015, at 7:50 AM, Jonathan Gray wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 05:21:40PM -0500, Edwin Amsler wrote:
>> Nice! Any quick tutorials and patches for us to start
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 10:50:34PM +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 05:21:40PM -0500, Edwin Amsler wrote:
> > Nice! Any quick tutorials and patches for us to start playing with this
> > ourselves?
>
> Something along the lines of:
>
> cd /sys/arch/armv7/conf/
> config GENERI
On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 05:21:40PM -0500, Edwin Amsler wrote:
> Nice! Any quick tutorials and patches for us to start playing with this
> ourselves?
Something along the lines of:
cd /sys/arch/armv7/conf/
config GENERIC
cd ../compile/GENERIC
make bsd.VEXPRESSA15.umg
$ sudo ifconfig tun0 link0
$
On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 05:37:38PM +0200, Patrick Wildt wrote:
>
> > Am 06.06.2015 um 16:47 schrieb Jonathan Gray :
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 03:43:46PM +0200, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> >>
> >>> Am 06.06.2015 um 15:06 schrieb Jonathan Gray :
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 02:34:04AM +02
Nice! Any quick tutorials and patches for us to start playing with this
ourselves?
--
Edwin (on the move)
> On Jun 6, 2015, at 10:37 AM, Patrick Wildt wrote:
>
>
>> Am 06.06.2015 um 16:47 schrieb Jonathan Gray :
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 03:43:46PM +0200, Patrick Wildt wrote:
>>>
A
> Am 06.06.2015 um 16:47 schrieb Jonathan Gray :
>
> On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 03:43:46PM +0200, Patrick Wildt wrote:
>>
>>> Am 06.06.2015 um 15:06 schrieb Jonathan Gray :
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 02:34:04AM +0200, Patrick Wildt wrote:
Just some random input.
QEMU supports
On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 03:43:46PM +0200, Patrick Wildt wrote:
>
> > Am 06.06.2015 um 15:06 schrieb Jonathan Gray :
> >
> > On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 02:34:04AM +0200, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> >> Just some random input.
> >>
> >> QEMU supports emulating a few ARM boards. One of those is
> >> the cub
> Am 06.06.2015 um 15:06 schrieb Jonathan Gray :
>
> On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 02:34:04AM +0200, Patrick Wildt wrote:
>> Just some random input.
>>
>> QEMU supports emulating a few ARM boards. One of those is
>> the cubieboard which OpenBSD already supports. Unfortunately
>> it looks like that eve
On Sun, May 24, 2015 at 02:34:04AM +0200, Patrick Wildt wrote:
> Just some random input.
>
> QEMU supports emulating a few ARM boards. One of those is
> the cubieboard which OpenBSD already supports. Unfortunately
> it looks like that even though it does emulate its ethernet controller,
> it does
>
> tl;dr version: Using other building processes simply hides the
> shortcomings from the very people who are most likely to be able to fix
> it. No packages for arm may be frustrating for users, but it also
> reminds the developers (who are also users) they have work to do, and
> the work needs
Please support the ARM developers in getting the base OS stable, then we can
worry about getting the packages and ports working.
It would be advantageous to have a stable OS before you can begin debugging
issues with packages and ports.
> On May 25, 2015, at 9:01 AM, Nick Holland wrote:
>
>>
On 05/24/15 00:00, valerij cotinskij wrote:
> 2015-05-24 3:46 GMT+03:00, Tobias Ulmer :
>> Of all OpenBSD lists, arm@ has the highest ratio of unproductive
>> whining.
>>
>>
>
> and then, in addition to all this thing, some stranger is showing up
> and adds his stupid question written in bad engli
> On 2015, May 21, at 2:07 PM, akita1...@online.de wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> 5.7/packages/arm is not available even on ftp.openbsd.org.
> Is that lost beyond recall?
>
> Jake
>
Jake,
It seems that arm base is not stable enough to justify the effort of
making packages at this time. We pl
2015/05/24 13:08 "Warner Losh" :
>
>
> > On May 23, 2015, at 4:46 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Warner suggested that emulated hardware could be faster than the native
> > hardware being used. If emulated hardware were twice as fast, would
that
> > justify using it in addition to native build
>On 23 May 2015 at 21:32, Nick Holland wrote:
>On 05/23/15 17:19, Douglas Beattie wrote:
>> I think there is a difference between building OpenBSD "on real hardware"
>> and building port binaries for ARMv7 which are intended to run across all
>> of the ARMv7 target ports.
>
>Obviously, you know MU
So far, the only issue I've had building anything on arm is the speed
difference. The limited hardware really does take its toll: limited RAM,
extremely slow IO, heat issues with continuous high load on fanless systems.
Building the entire ports tree in one go is not representative of most of th
> On May 23, 2015, at 4:46 AM, Joel Rees wrote:
>
>
>> Warner suggested that emulated hardware could be faster than the native
> hardware being used. If emulated hardware were twice as fast, would that
> justify using it in addition to native builds?
>>
>
> If only such theoretical speed adv
2015-05-24 3:46 GMT+03:00, Tobias Ulmer :
> Of all OpenBSD lists, arm@ has the highest ratio of unproductive
> whining.
>
>
and then, in addition to all this thing, some stranger is showing up
and adds his stupid question written in bad english:
personally i hate hardware virtualization and hope t
> On May 23, 2015, at 4:05 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> On 2015/05/22 23:54, Edward Fochler wrote:
>> I agree that improved stability would not justify emulation, because
>> of the code targeting problem you cited. But would speed help?
>
> Not particularly. If the machines and/or OS arch ar
> On May 22, 2015, at 9:10 PM, Nick Holland wrote:
>
> On 05/22/15 13:26, Warner Losh wrote:
> ...
>> FreeBSD has had good luck with using userland qemu emulation to build
>> packages. More stable than random hardware that was never intended to
>> have such a load on it, and quite a bit faster t
On 05/23/15 17:19, Douglas Beattie wrote:
> I think there is a difference between building OpenBSD "on real hardware"
> and building port binaries for ARMv7 which are intended to run across all
> of the ARMv7 target ports.
Obviously, you know MUCH more than the developers who have told you
otherwi
Of all OpenBSD lists, arm@ has the highest ratio of unproductive
whining.
Just some random input.
QEMU supports emulating a few ARM boards. One of those is
the cubieboard which OpenBSD already supports. Unfortunately
it looks like that even though it does emulate its ethernet controller,
it does not emulate any storage.
Qemu also supports emulating a „virt“ machine. Th
Thanks for the comment, Edwin. That’s the most realistic reason I’ve heard yet.
Something about the fun factor, then...
On 2015-05-23, Edwin Amsler wrote:
> Building virtual is a solid idea. It's just not fun, so it's not going to
> happen. Hell, Qemu support is likely going to be easier than rea
Okay, for the record, this thread is still about missing ARM packages
(and perhaps the expectation that they might return, given the proper
unfolding of events).
On 2015-05-23 Scarlett wrote:
> Why are OS bugs not a concern when doing ports builds? The OS
> must be suitably stable to complete the
> On May 23, 2015, at 5:26 PM, Scarlett wrote:
>
>> On 23/05/2015 22:19, Douglas Beattie wrote:
>> I think there is a difference between building OpenBSD "on real hardware"
>> and building port binaries for ARMv7 which are intended to run across all
>> of the ARMv7 target ports.
>>
>> And I thi
> If only such theoretical speed advantage were real
Last I checked, Qemu could show an arbitrary number of cores. I think OpenBSD
current has issues on ARM with multi-core but if it didn't, I could run a
non-BigLittle 8 core VM with huge amounts of RAM and SSDs. I think I could
build a pretty
I think there is a difference between building OpenBSD "on real hardware"
and building port binaries for ARMv7 which are intended to run across all
of the ARMv7 target ports.
And I think the concern should be less about “OS bugs and emulator bugs”
since (1.) you’re not building the OS, and (2.) AR
I have some ARM based boards from Hardkernel. In case OpenBSD 5.7
supports them I would love to use a bunch of them to create OpenBSD 5.7
packages. Hopefully it will be possible to build a cluster (OpenBSD) and
use it for such tasks like creating packages.
Odroid-XU
http://odroid.com/dokuwiki/
2015/05/23 15:56 "Edward Fochler" :
>
> I agree that improved stability would not justify emulation, because of
the code targeting problem you cited. But would speed help?
>
Crash at higher speed?
I think the subtext is that they need more people, people who don't have
important other things goi
On 2015/05/23 15:43, Hrishikesh Murukkathampoondi wrote:
>
> > Of the "recent" bulk builds, the one on the pandaboard worked best.
> > I have no idea about the newer machines though, last time I asked about
> > what was best, IIRC there were problems mentioned with everything…
> >
>
> Do you thi
> Of the "recent" bulk builds, the one on the pandaboard worked best.
> I have no idea about the newer machines though, last time I asked about
> what was best, IIRC there were problems mentioned with everything…
>
Do you think the the problem is hardware stability of ARM based boards or if
Ope
On 2015/05/22 08:40, Philip Cheney wrote:
> While it's building, I'll pick up something a little more suitable for
> the task, too. It looks like the Wandboard is fairly well supported and
> the Quad model has a bit more punch for the cost. Does anyone know of
> any caveats to using that system?
O
On 2015/05/22 23:54, Edward Fochler wrote:
> I agree that improved stability would not justify emulation, because
> of the code targeting problem you cited. But would speed help?
Not particularly. If the machines and/or OS arch are reliable in the
first place it's not a problem to spread builds ac
I agree that improved stability would not justify emulation, because of the
code targeting problem you cited. But would speed help?
Warner suggested that emulated hardware could be faster than the native
hardware being used. If emulated hardware were twice as fast, would that
justify using
On 05/22/15 13:26, Warner Losh wrote:
...
> FreeBSD has had good luck with using userland qemu emulation to build
> packages. More stable than random hardware that was never intended to
> have such a load on it, and quite a bit faster than these little
> boards.
Think about that a bit. Emulated h
qemu system emulation (= full emulated system) on my x86 is a third slower than
on my usual build machine.
Not sure how fast userland emulation is.
> Am 23.05.2015 um 02:24 schrieb Edwin Amsler :
>
> That's my thinking too. I know building is supposed to put a platform through
> its paces, but
That's my thinking too. I know building is supposed to put a platform through
its paces, but virtualizing the more exotic platforms would ease a lot of
package building.
--
Edwin (on the move)
> On May 22, 2015, at 12:26 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
>
>> On May 22, 2015, at 8:50 AM, Henrik Lund
> On May 22, 2015, at 8:50 AM, Henrik Lund Kramshøj wrote:
>
>
>> On 22 May 2015, at 16:40, Philip Cheney wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> I've been building packages as I need them on a Beaglebone Black and I can
>> go ahead and start a bulk build.
>>
>> While it's building, I'll pick up something a li
> On 22 May 2015, at 16:40, Philip Cheney wrote:
>
> ...
> I've been building packages as I need them on a Beaglebone Black and I can go
> ahead and start a bulk build.
>
> While it's building, I'll pick up something a little more suitable for the
> task, too. It looks like the Wandboard is f
> On 22 May 15, at 01:34, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
>>> On 2015/05/21 20:07, akita1...@online.de wrote:
5.7/packages/arm is not available even on ftp.openbsd.org.
Is that lost beyond recall?
>>>
>>> On 21 May 15, at 13:05, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>>> We haven't been building arm packa
> > On 2015/05/21 20:07, akita1...@online.de wrote:
> >> 5.7/packages/arm is not available even on ftp.openbsd.org.
> >> Is that lost beyond recall?
> >
> > On 21 May 15, at 13:05, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > We haven't been building arm packages since 5.6.
>
On 2015/05/21 18:54, Philip Cheney w
That's unfortunate, since arm is one of the few architectures where building
ports is often infeasible due to limitations of the installed machine.
Why aren't arm packages built anymore? Is a hardware donation needed for the
build farm?
> On 21 May 15, at 13:05, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
>
On 2015/05/21 20:07, akita1...@online.de wrote:
> Hello
>
> 5.7/packages/arm is not available even on ftp.openbsd.org.
> Is that lost beyond recall?
>
> Jake
>
We haven't been building arm packages since 5.6.
47 matches
Mail list logo
