www-builds mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Bayer <andrew.ba...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Build slave capacity on builds.apache.org
Date Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:42:16 GMT
Yeah, I don't think we need physical nodes - leasing hosts somewhere would
be perfectly fine. If we did go with physical nodes, I'd guess that five
would probably be fine for the next year, split into multiple

I'm working on getting stats/graphs - should hopefully have that ready in a
week or so.


On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 11:01 AM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Gavin McDonald <gmcdonald@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 20 Aug 2015, at 2:18 am, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >
> >> ...how many additional
> >> build nodes/executors will satiate our current demand for capacity?
> >
> > I know this was not aimed at me but I’ll give my opinion.
> >
> > From what I’ve seen of the current growth over the last year; and to
> allow for
> > future expansion over the next 2 years I would look to get another 20
> static
> > slave machines/vms , each running 2 executors.
> >
> Just for some perspective keep in mind that we are 4 months into the
> current budget year. The total hardware/cloud budget for all of the
> ASF is 90k.
> 20 additional physical nodes is a 200k capital outlay if we purchase
> hardware, and 50k/yr amortized over 4 years, and likely another rack
> of power and cooling.
> At RAX that's $4321/month and $51,852/year.
> The cheapest option would be going to the group Daniel found in France
> for ELK, while not nearly as flexible as a true cloud system, we could
> run 20 nodes there for $1500 per month, or $18,000 per year.
> And that's an increase on what we are currently spending, not the
> total. We can ask some of our infra sponsors for that, but we need to
> plan that out, and deal with the risk that involves. We are already
> heavily dependent on a single sponsor for the vast majority of our
> physical CI nodes.
> That said, we really need to understand the demand first before we
> decide to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. In many
> ways, I expected Travis to decrease load on Jenkins, but we continue
> to expand. It'd be interesting to see graphs of # of jobs over time,
> how that's increasing, as well as what projects are currently
> consuming build time.
> --David

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message