Meeting Minutes December 2, 2010
Attendees: Heather Kelly, Jana and Gregg Thayer, Tracy Usher, Tony Waite
Tony provided the current state of things. In August/September much work was done. Started by looking over the list of unresolved references in offline software provided by Tracy, and figured out what FSW packages are involved in satisfying them. Joanne also helped out by providing a script showing which packages we grab to create our OBF external library. Tony pointed out that we have been including a whole bunch of libraries that we do not need, such as task communications. Tony and company worked to find a "cleave" point to cut down on the packages offline needs. This was fairly successful and where we previously used 19 FSW packages, we are now down to 10. A sandbox has been set up. The code building has been updated to support rhel++ platforms and then they plowed through the 10 packages. Most of the changes were trivial. CMT requirements files were updated to handle new targets, and gcc 4.1 requires the use of < > instead of "" in the include statements. A test build still needs to be done.
Tony reports that they have a way to back propagate to prior builds, back as far as 1-1-3 should be possible. This suits offline just fine, as we are still currently using B1-1-3.
Further progress has been held up by other pressing FSW upgrades and EXO work.
What is left to do? Haven't yet gone through the data packets, get things into the LAT testbed and make sure things haven't broken, JJ would like to retrofit some of the test programs for rhel4 & 5 to make sure they still function. Tony suggests that we need a month of his, JJ and Owen's time. The remaining work is "grunt work", the real hurdles have been overcome.
Jana asked when Tony expects we could get a month of his, JJ and Owen's time, and we suspect around February/March. We'd also like to get some of Tracy's attention at that time to help test things out on the offline side. Tracy pointed out that there is a Pisa workshop in mid-February, but other than that, that timeline sounds feasible.
The meeting ended with an internal goal of delivering an updated FSW to offline by the end of February.
The current progress is very promising and should allow offline to handle a potential migration of GlastRelease to RHEL5 by the end of 2011.
Meeting Minutes July 16, 2010
Attendees: Heather Kelly, Kim Lo, JJ Russell, Jana and Gregg Thayer, Tracy Usher, Tony Waite
Jana asks what our drop dead date is for OBF support of gcc4/64 bit builds. In consultation with Richard, we absolutely need an updated OBF by the end of life for RHEL4 which is Feb, 2012. That being the case, we would need OBF by Nov, 2011. Heather would like to back that up a little bit and say summer, 2011 so offline has time to test things out and make sure all of our other code is working on RHEL5.
From Tony:
The only good news is that I believe FSW's CMX system is now capable of generating all elements of the two-by-two matrix (RHEL4/RHEL5 64/32). I have not attempted a "micro-trace" of Obf through the flight software code base.
From Gregg:
I've been working on and off at trying to refactor the OBF code so that that list gets shorter. Some small progress has been made, but not a heck of a lot.
Tony provides one example of the type of required changes: apparently gcc4 makes a distinction between <> and "" for include files. This will require modifying the include directives throughout the FSW code. Jana notes that FSW uploads are limited to 1.3 MB and if every file is touched, such an upload my exceed this limit. That would require multiple uploads for one change, something we haven't had to do previously.
Once Tony has an initial list of required constituents, he can pass it on to JJ, Gregg, Kim for further investigation.
We'll check in with Tony in the Oct/Dec time frame to see if some time has freed up to allow him to move forward with creating a list of constituents required for OBF. If at that time, progress does not seem possible, we'll come up with another plan.
In speaking to Richard afterwards, he wonders if it is truly necessary to upload any FSW changes that come about for OBF support in GR?
Meeting Minutes March 24, 2010
Attendees: Heather Kelly, Kim Lo, JJ Russell, Jana and Gregg Thayer, Tracy Usher, Tony Waite
Tony reviewed where he stood last October, see extreme bottom of this Confluence page. JJ noted that he intended OBF to be independent of some of the lower level packages like PBS. If that dependence is truly there, he may be able to clean it up. Tony reminded us that CMX desires to build everything from the bottom up. We have not previously attempted to excise bits of FSW and build subsets.
FSW options:
- Actually move all of FSW to build on RHEL5-64.
- Try to excise only what OBF requires.
- Something else?
and does this version propagate onto the satellite?
The Offline alternative is to keep OBS/FSW on RHEL4-32 and virtualize that step and pull it out of GR.
Tony on-the-fly-brainstorming thinks it may be possible to get CMT to build sub-trees, by using the special tags associated with RHEL5-only.
JJ and Gregg will review what portions of FSW are absolutely necessary for OBF. Then Gregg and Kim can attempt a "path-finding effort" (where they basically compile and see what errors pop up and fix them) with Tony's assistance as necessary.
Jana requested that Tracy provide a list of FSW libraries that offline currently depends on (where that list was obtained by building and adding libraries in until all missing references were resolved):
"CDM/V0-2-4"
"EDS_DB/V0-0-2"
"EFC_DB/V2-0-0"
"GEO_DB/V2-0-0"
"GGF_DB/V2-0-0"
"GFC_DB/V3-0-0"
"XFC_DB/V3-1-1"
"CPU_DB/V0-4-2"
"LEM_DB/V0-1-5"
"CGB_DB/V0-1-0"
"COP_DB/V0-0-1"
"CPP_DB/V0-1-1"
"COG_DB/V0-0-1"
"CPG_DB/V0-1-0"
"EFC/V4-3-0"
"XFC/V0-1-2"
"EDS/V2-9-1"
"PBI/V0-1-0"
"LSE/V1-3-6"
"FBS/V0-2-3"
"CMX/V2-12-2"
"CAB/V1-0-0"
"MDB/V0-0-1"
"ZLIB/V2-4-0"
"PBS/V2-10-15"
"EMP/V1-3-5"
"IMM/V0-3-2"
"MSG/V3-1-1"
"ITC/V3-9-0"
"CCSDS/V3-5-2"
"LCBD/V1-4-3"
"LCBT/V1-6-1"
"THS/V1-6-1"
"LEM/V4-7-1"
Options | Consequences |
|---|---|
Convince FSW to exert effort to build on 64 bit machines | Work cannot start until February and it is unclear how much time will be necessary or how many FSW packages will require updates. |
Build FSW (or portions of it) ourselves using CMT (actually do we want to use FSWs CMX build system?) | Can we afford the resources to do that? Building is one thing - working through the pilie of issues for 64 bit or gcc 4 is another and would still likely require a lot of interaction with the FSW team. |
Ask FSW to at least support gcc 4 but stay with 32 bit (RHEL5-32) | May be as much effort as moving to 64 bit and gcc 4 |
Stay with what we have: FSW built on RHEL4-32 | We would have to upgrade to this newer FSW build to take advantage of it, hopefully not too labor intensive as the OBF portion is supposedly unchanged. |
Stop using OBF and write our own filter code as we did in the old days | Risk of not fully duplicating the existing OBF code. Future changes to OBF in FSW would then have to be reflected in our version (it is unclear how much more modification to OBF there really will be though). |
...