Hi, On 24-11-18, Segher Boessenkool via cfarm-users wrote: > On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 11:28:58PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason via > cfarm-users wrote: > > I got access to the farm a while ago to test free software projects I > > work on, mainly git.git. I wanted to send a headsup about what I've been > > up to. > > > > I'm setting up something where the integration branches of git.git are > > smoke tested on various machines on the farm. See the Git ML > > announcement at > > https://public-inbox.org/git/875zwm15k2....@evledraar.gmail.com/
Nice! > > Currently I'm running things on these machines: > > https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git-gitlab-ci/blob/b8d4645891aa/.gitlab-ci.yml#L16-57 We have a munin instance with graphs for most machines, it allows to check whether the machine is already heavily used. For instance: https://cfarm.tetaneutral.net/munin/gccfarm/gcc112/index.html#system > > I've tried to be conservative about resources. It's all nice -n 19'd, > > and with a conservative -j value relative to the number of cores: > > https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git-gitlab-ci/blob/b8d4645891aa/ci/gitlab/run-on-gcc-farm.sh#L62-163 > > At least for the Power machines, that isn't conservative at all. > -j1 is conservative. -j24 is not conservative on a machine with 20 CPUs > (gcc112), or 32 CPUs (gcc135). The AIX (gcc119) jobs seem to run for over > an hour on half the machine? That's no good :-( According to ansible [https://cfarm.tetaneutral.net/machines/list/] gcc112 has 160 cores, and gcc135 has 128 cores. Is ansible getting this wrong? Baptiste
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cfarm-users mailing list cfarm-users@lists.tetaneutral.net https://lists.tetaneutral.net/listinfo/cfarm-users
