Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 16, 2009, at 1:59 AM, "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,
How do we determine this for the 100+ jobs?
Nigel
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
