> On 5 Oct 2015, at 19:45, Colin McCabe <cmcc...@alumni.cmu.edu> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Steve Loughran <ste...@hortonworks.com> > wrote: >> >> the jenkins machines are shared across multiple projects; cut the executors >> to 1/node and then everyone's performance drops, including the time to >> complete of all jenkins patches, which is one of the goals. > > Hi Steve, > > Just to be clear, the proposal wasn't to cut the executors to 1 per > node, but to have multiple Docker containers per node (perhaps 3 or 4) > and run each executor in an isolated container. At that point, > whatever badness Maven does on the .m2 stops being a problem for > concurrently running jobs. >
I'd missed that bit. Yes, something with a containerized ~//m2 repo gets the isolation without playing with mvn version fixup > I guess I don't feel that strongly about this, but the additional > complexity of the other solutions (like running a "find" command in > .m2, or changing artifactID) seems like a disadvantage compared to > just using multiple containers. And there may be other race > conditions here that we're not aware of... like a TOCTOU between > checking for a jar in .m2 and downloading it, for example. The > Dockerized solution skips all those potential failure modes and > complexity. > > cheers, > Colin >
