x/build: run a Windows XP or Server 2003 builder

[bradfitz]

We should run a Windows Server 2003 builder. (not just WS2008/WS2012 on GCE)

In order of difficulty:

1. if anybody has a spare one, that would be great to start.
2. manually run one on AWS
3. auto-create them on AWS as needed (include in trybots too). requires new builder infrastructure (cc @crawshaw)

AWS links:
http://aws.amazon.com/windows/products/ec2/server2003/ -- until July 14, 2015
http://aws.amazon.com/windows/products/ec2/server2003/access/ -- beyond July 14, 2015

/cc @alexbrainman @minux

[alexbrainman]

@bradfitz I am not sure Windows Server 2003 support is important. It is effectively Windows XP. Not many people run that OS anymore (except myself). Microsoft discontinue its support soon.

Alex

[bradfitz]

We should have a builder for anything we pretend to halfway support.

If we don't support Go for Windows XP/2003, then why is #10162 still open? And the downloads page says Windows XP or above.

[alexbrainman]

Fair enough.

[kardianos]

@bradfitz I could host them for now. Want both a 386 and amd64 builder? I could also transfer you the ISOs and SKUs; I don't have a need for them aside from something like this now.

[bradfitz]

I think just amd64 or just 386 is fine. Whatever is easiest.

I'd prefer you just run one for now. Once I start to run one, I'd rather run it on AWS.

Email me at my golang.org address and I'll get you a builder key.

[minux]

@alexbrainman, whether the vendor supports it or not is irrelevant for this issue as we're still claiming to support XP or above. We still haven't remove OS X 10.6 support, so we continue to have a 10.6 builder even though we've talked about removing 10.6 support. We haven't even talked about removing XP/2003 support, and it seems there is little reason to remove their support. Modern windows version are using too much resources, so the only way I can do some windows testing is on windows xp 32-bit and 2003 64-bit.

[alexbrainman]

@minux I am not against more builders. I just don't think Windows Server 2003 is a good choice. We still don't have 386 builder (any). And even if you want something that is "very old", Windows XP 386 would me better choice. Windows XP 386 is much more common then Windows Server 2003 amd64. Just my 2c.

Alex

[minux]

If you see my replies to the windows 2012 builder thread, I'm actually in favor of setting up a real 32-bit windows builder (i.e. windows xp). I suggest that we need a 2003 builder because it's the lowest 64-bit windows version that we claim to support and it's more common than 64-bit windows xp.

[kardianos]

I ran XP 64-bit for a long time. My understanding is XP 64-bit based off
of 2003 64-bit. In my experience, the architecture matters much more the
the flavor in this case; sometimes the 64-bit version of XP/2003 is a
little "odd".

I think everyone is fine/wants a builder for amd64 and 386. I would suggest
the XP vs 2003 flavor won't matter for the builder's tests.
-Daniel

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 3:09 PM Minux Ma notifications@github.com wrote:

If you see my replies to the windows 2012 builder thread, I'm actually
in favor of setting up a real 32-bit windows builder (i.e. windows xp).

I suggest that we need a 2003 builder because it's the lowest 64-bit
windows version that we claim to support and it's more common than
64-bit windows xp.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#10267 (comment).

[bradfitz]

WinXP 32-bit would be good too, of course.

[kardianos]

I've started the builder. There are currently three failures at tip:
crypto/tls: Missing cert. Should I add from a different box or modify the
test? OS is up to date with MS provided patches.
runtime: The test failure is addressed in my posted CL, pending Alex's
investigation.
time: Several tests fail the accuracy tests; tickers and sleeps wake up too
soon from sleep. I'm honestly not sure if this is because I'm running it in
a VM or if Windows 2003 is just this loose with time (I mean I know its
loose, just a matter of degree).

-Daniel

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 2:29 AM Brad Fitzpatrick notifications@github.com
wrote:

WinXP 32-bit would be good too, of course.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#10267 (comment).

[kardianos]

Also runtime/pprof sometimes fails. I haven't looked into that one.

On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 12:30 AM Daniel Theophanes kardianos@gmail.com
wrote:

I've started the builder. There are currently three failures at tip:
crypto/tls: Missing cert. Should I add from a different box or modify the
test? OS is up to date with MS provided patches.
runtime: The test failure is addressed in my posted CL, pending Alex's
investigation.
time: Several tests fail the accuracy tests; tickers and sleeps wake up
too soon from sleep. I'm honestly not sure if this is because I'm running
it in a VM or if Windows 2003 is just this loose with time (I mean I know
its loose, just a matter of degree).

-Daniel

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 2:29 AM Brad Fitzpatrick notifications@github.com
wrote:

WinXP 32-bit would be good too, of course.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#10267 (comment).

[bradfitz]

We shouldn't install a cert from another box. We need to modify the code and/or test to work on a stock Windows system without modications.

As for missed ticks: first determine whether it's a VM thing. If it's just a VM thing, let's add an environment variable (IN_VM? like the IN_QEMU one we've used before) which, if enabled, skips such tests.