Tim, the Hadoop labeled machines were not donated to ASF. Minerva,
Vesta, and a couple others (used now for buildbot) were donated to ASF.
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
Nige
On Oct 28, 2009, at 8:47 AM, Tim Ellison wrote:
On 28/Oct/2009 15:13, Justin Mason wrote:
Well, we could move more load from hudson.zones to minerva first:
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/computer/%28master%29/load-statistics
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/computer/minerva.apache.org%20%28Ubuntu%29/load-statistics
(wow, those are good graphs!)
Why do you say to do that first?
At least there are times when Minerva is using both its executors.
However, it looks like we could get by with half the current number of
the Hadoop labeled machines without impacting anything.
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/label/Hadoop/load-statistics?type=hour
We certainly should embark on a program of persuading projects to
schedule their jobs on both Linux and Solaris, though, to do that
Maybe we can just define a useful set of labels to sets of nodes and
encourage people to tie builds to them rather than specific machines.
Regards,
Tim
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 14:48, Tim Ellison
wrote:
Just looking at the Hudson machine utilization at the moment.
There are
a number of jobs that are tied to particular machines in the
queue, and
a number of (hadoop-labeled) machines that are committed to tied
jobs only.
I realize that the machines are courteously donated etc, but is the
capacity being used effectively [1]?
In particular, would the Hadoop jobs be impacted if we
reclassified an
existing slave as general usage, and more jobs as scheduable
anywhere?
[1] e.g.
http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/computer/hadoop1%20%28Ubuntu%29/load-statistics?type=hour
Regards,
Tim
