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. Regards, Tim
