On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 20:28, Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@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.
