Closed Bug 504205 Opened 16 years ago Closed 16 years ago

Need a Windows XP QA VM

Categories

(mozilla.org Graveyard :: Server Operations, task)

Product:
mozilla.org Graveyard
Component:
Server Operations
Platform:
x86
Windows XP
Type:
task
Priority:
Not set
Severity:
normal

Tracking

(Not tracked)

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED

People

(Reporter: cmtalbert, Assigned: phong)

References

Details

(Whiteboard: license)

We need a Windows XP VM for crash reproduction testing. It needs to be hosted in the colo. The name isn't that important, how about qa-winxp-crashrepro? bc will be the primary contact for this box. This is needed for an urgent Q3 goal, so I've marked it critical.
Severity: critical → normal
This should be running SP 3 too, thanks.
We should be able to access the host's esx web interface to perform snapshots and restores as well. https://10.2.73.6/ is timing out and https://10.2.73.9/ is accessible with our old credentials, but doesn't give us rights to admin the vms.
It's 10.2.72.6 that you should be using. That's the VirtualCenter interface. 10.2.73.9 is qm-vmware01 but you really shouldn't be accessing ESX directly.
mrz: thanks. you are correct as always.
Assignee: server-ops → phong
As far as space requirements, we can probably apply the same heuristics from bug 504207 to this machine too as they will have the same purpose: While we could get by with less by rm'ing old build trees, a reasonably populated set of trees will be 20-30G. With an OS of 8-10G and log files in the 1G range, I think about 60G would be sufficient. Would it be better to have the base operating system on one drive and the working space on another? Clint, what do you think? ------- Comment #4 From Clint Talbert ( :ctalbert ) 2009-07-21 10:26:32 PDT (-) [reply] ------- Private That sounds about right in terms of space size. I'm not entirely sure that having the OS on one partition and the work space on another partition really buys us anything with modern day OS's. I'm happy with that either way. FWIW we need the same amount of space on the windows XP machine in bug 504205, I'll comment over there.
can I clone one of the existing XP VM on qm-vmware01?
Don't clone qm-winxp02 or qm-winxp03. They have installation problems. I'm not opposed to cloning an existing winxp vm. We can customize the physical characteristics without regard to the previous vm's settings right? If you have one with Visual C++ 2005 Pro and the Windows Vista SDK and mozilla-build already installed with perhaps the buildbot environment setup, that is fine with me. perhaps a naming scheme of qm-crash-winxp01, ... We will be needing a number more of these vms when the system goes live. Once we have this one set up we can just clone it. I'm thinking of how to run parallel tests on a single vm in order to minimize the number of vms we will need, but we will probably want a separate host for these and the linux vms.
I think I will need a license to do a clean install if I can't find a current xp vm to clone. What about qm-winxp01-debug?
I have no idea about that vm. Clint, do you know anything about qm-winxp01-debug ? Won't you need a license for a cloned winxp anyway?
For XP, if you clone a VM that has already been activated then it will keep the existing activation.
Whiteboard: license
(In reply to comment #9) > I have no idea about that vm. Clint, do you know anything about > qm-winxp01-debug ? > I don't know what qm-winxp01-debug's state is or what it was used for. :(
qm-crash-xp01 10.2.73.208 is online. 60 GB drive RDP enabled.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 16 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
please email username/password to bclary@mozilla.com
Blocks: 504712
Product: mozilla.org → mozilla.org Graveyard
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.