On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 00:01, Nigel Daley <nda...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > > 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?
I'm assuming we can ask -- all Hudson users are supposed to be subbed to infrastructure@ at least. Also we can change the main site banner.... --j. >> 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 > > -- --j.
