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
VMs/containers.

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

A.

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
>

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