On 28/Oct/2009 15:13, Justin Mason wrote: > Well, we could move more load from hudson.zones to minerva first: > > http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/computer/%28master%29/load-statistics > http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/computer/minerva.apache.org%20%28Ubuntu%29/load-statistics > > (wow, those are good graphs!)
Why do you say to do that first? At least there are times when Minerva is using both its executors. However, it looks like we could get by with half the current number of the Hadoop labeled machines without impacting anything. http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/label/Hadoop/load-statistics?type=hour > We certainly should embark on a program of persuading projects to > schedule their jobs on both Linux and Solaris, though, to do that.... Maybe we can just define a useful set of labels to sets of nodes and encourage people to tie builds to them rather than specific machines. Regards, Tim > On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 14:48, Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Just looking at the Hudson machine utilization at the moment. There are >> a number of jobs that are tied to particular machines in the queue, and >> a number of (hadoop-labeled) machines that are committed to tied jobs only. >> >> I realize that the machines are courteously donated etc, but is the >> capacity being used effectively [1]? >> >> In particular, would the Hadoop jobs be impacted if we reclassified an >> existing slave as general usage, and more jobs as scheduable anywhere? >> >> [1] e.g. >> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/computer/hadoop1%20%28Ubuntu%29/load-statistics?type=hour >> >> Regards, >> Tim >> >> > > >
