Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Feature Request] Add support s390x #2766

Closed
photosojourn opened this issue May 5, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

[Feature Request] Add support s390x #2766

photosojourn opened this issue May 5, 2017 · 5 comments
Milestone

Comments

@photosojourn
Copy link

Feature Request

Proposal:

Update the build.py script to support to support s390x architecture. Currently running Go Build and Go Install from the pkg root results in a working and valid telegraf binary.

Current behavior:

The build.py script does not support a value of s390x for the flag --arch while cross complication of C and Go to s390x is supported by the tooling.

Desired behavior:

Passing --arch s390x results in a s390 Go binary being produced.

Use case:

Mainframes are still about and still running critical workloads on Linux so it would be great to able to use Telegraf in the same manner as our x86_64 estate.

@danielnelson danielnelson added this to the 1.4.0 milestone May 5, 2017
@danielnelson
Copy link
Contributor

I'll add support to our build scripts. Have you tested a build on s390x to see if it works?

@photosojourn
Copy link
Author

We briefly tested version a while back (0.13.0 maybe) and all the basics e.g cpu memory etc worked. I can complete further testing when I'm back in Monday on 1.2.0, but the scope will be limited as we don't use most of the tech supported so will focus on CPU, memory, system, disk and network.

That said Linux OS (RHEL, SLES and Ubuntu) on s390x are identical to there x86_64 excluding underlying low level stuff (network devices for example) so if the Go code is using standard OS interfaces and libraries (Glibc et. el.) then there shouldn't be any reason for it all not to work.

So the question I guess becomes this; how much testing is enough?

@danielnelson
Copy link
Contributor

If it builds that is enough for me to enable builds for it. Support will have to be on best effort only though since I don't have any hardware available. Hypothetically if it got in the way of other functionality we might have to pull it though.

@danielnelson
Copy link
Contributor

@photosojourn
Copy link
Author

Ace I will grab and test them Monday and will raise an issue if I hit any issues. Re support I'm happy with the best endeavours approach given the hardware barrier.

vlamug pushed a commit to vlamug/telegraf that referenced this issue May 30, 2017
jeichorn pushed a commit to jeichorn/telegraf that referenced this issue Jul 24, 2017
maxunt pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jun 26, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants