Having the Jenkins server on a host that doesn’t run builds isn’t just interesting, it’s a good idea. The only downside that I see is that the slave-master communication (probably dominated by your build logs and artifacts) is slowed down to network speeds rather than the speed of your loopback adapter. I’m running in this configuration with 170+ slave nodes scattered across over a dozen build hosts (each build takes up a user account, so we need multiple slaves per host). We basically build 60 different SCM branches of the same project.
Multiple masters can be useful. I have one master for my build jobs, another one for housekeeping (I find it better than cron because it’s more visible and doesn’t spam you with email, and it’s also useful for some of your more routine command lines), and some people on a side project set up their own. Part of the question is organizational: Jenkins is small enough that somebody working on a small project can set their own up, if they’re willing to spend a little of maintenance time. That can keep you less involved in smaller projects, if this sort of a thing is acceptable to your organization. --Rob From: jenkinsci-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:jenkinsci-users@googlegroups.com> [mailto:jenkinsci-users@googlegroups.com]<mailto:[mailto:jenkinsci-users@googlegroups.com]> On Behalf Of mpapo - Michaël Pailloncy Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 8:58 AM To: jenkinsci-users@googlegroups.com<mailto:jenkinsci-users@googlegroups.com> Subject: Feedback of your CI architecture Hi all, Currently, we manage near 250 jobs related to several java projects and several teams in our company. Our CI architecture characteristics : - a Jenkins master on AIX 5.3 with 8 processors and 10 GB of RAM - 3 RHEL slaves with 2 processors and 4 GB of RAM - 2 Windows slaves with 1 processors and 2 GB of RAM We arrive sometimes has limitations with Jenkins. Especially during releases. Due to an increase of job number in our Jenkins in my company, we want to change our architecture to meet our needs. We are going to manage near 500 jobs. We want to switch the master on a RHEL OS (our new main target platform) and add an AIX slave for projects that need this platform. Here are our thoughts : - Do you think it would be interesting to have a master only used to monitor the jobs (0 executor, all builds are delegate to slaves) ? This could be interesting to have a more stable and more reliable master. - On the other hand, do you think it could be interesting to use multiple masters ? One for each team for example ? This could be nice to have a more specialized master per team but I guess it must increase the maintenance time. I need feedbacks from the community to choose the best architecture : How many jobs do you manage ? What are the characteristics of your architecture ? (number of slaves, of master ??) Would you prefer to use a slave with large capacity, or more with capacities smaller? Thanks in advance from any help and feeback ! Michaël Pailloncy The information in this message is for the intended recipient(s) only and may be the proprietary and/or confidential property of Litle & Co., LLC, and thus protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Litle & Co. immediately by replying to this message and then promptly deleting it and your reply permanently from your computer.
