www-builds mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mason ...@jmason.org>
Subject Re: Hudson machine utilization
Date Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:32:04 GMT
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 20:28, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14/Nov/2009 04:46, Nigel Daley wrote:
>>>> I agree we should encourage folks to tie their linux builds to the
>>>> "Ubuntu" label (which already exists), so both minerva and vesta get
>>>> used.
>>>>
>>>> We should also encourage projects (spam-assasin, ftpserver, struts,
>>>> vysper, xwork2) to move off of the Master hudson.zones.apache.org
>>>
>>> Why are minerva and vesta configured as "Leave this machine for tied
>>> jobs only"?  I'd expect that setting for Master and Hadoop nodes, and
>>> let the others pick up any job.
>>
>> That would be preferable, but for legacy reasons Vesta and Minerva are
>> left for tied jobs.  This was because the Master was the only build node
>> for 1.5+ years and had lots and lots of build on it when we then added
>> Vesta and Minerva.  For compatibility reasons, we set it up as is.
>>
>> Suggestions on how to change this now?  How to migrate builds off
>> Master?  Clearly the extremes are "rip the band-aid off -- builds start
>> failing that try to run on Master" & "big project to contact build
>> owners and push them to migrate".
>
> Just tie jobs to master that have dependencies there, and mark it for
> tied jobs only, and let other jobs target labels if they have specific
> OS/CPU requirements.
>
> I don't think anything is particularly 'broken' at the moment is it?  I
> was just trying to understand the current set-up, and if we ask new jobs
> to set up a bit differently we can prevent over burdening master while
> leaving spare capacity elsewhere.

good plan.  that hadn't occurred to me ;)  +1

It's at least a very good start.

-- 
--j.

Mime
View raw message