Re: Hudson machine utilization
On 16/Nov/2009 00:12, Justin Mason wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 00:01, Nigel Daley wrote: >> On Nov 16, 2009, at 1:59 AM, "Tim Ellison" 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 Yep, like I say, I don't think things are especially broken at the moment, I'm merely suggesting a soft approach to 'stop digging the hole' before we are in too deep to get out of trouble. Regards, Tim >>> 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 >> > > >
Re: Hudson machine utilization
Hi, On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Justin Mason wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 00:01, Nigel Daley wrote: >> 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 Do we have an easy way to get a list of all the jobs running on (vs. being explicitly bound to [1]) master? I volunteer to contact at least some of those projects and to help them migrate their builds. [1] http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/computer/(master)/ BR, Jukka Zitting
Re: Hudson machine utilization
On 16/Nov/2009 09:53, Jukka Zitting wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Justin Mason wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 00:01, Nigel Daley wrote: >>> 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 > > Do we have an easy way to get a list of all the jobs running on (vs. > being explicitly bound to [1]) master? I volunteer to contact at least > some of those projects and to help them migrate their builds. > > [1] http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/computer/(master)/ Not that I'm aware of, other than piecemeal by watching what is running there via [2]. Hopefully there's enough info in groups of build names to get a few projects at a time notified. [2] http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/computer/%28master%29/builds Regards, Tim
Re: Hudson machine utilization
On Nov 16, 2009, at 3:52 PM, Tim Ellison wrote: On 16/Nov/2009 09:53, Jukka Zitting wrote: On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Justin Mason wrote: On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 00:01, Nigel Daley wrote: 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 Do we have an easy way to get a list of all the jobs running on (vs. being explicitly bound to [1]) master? I volunteer to contact at least some of those projects and to help them migrate their builds. [1] http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/computer/(master)/ Not that I'm aware of, other than piecemeal by watching what is running there via [2]. Hopefully there's enough info in groups of build names to get a few projects at a time notified. [2] http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/computer/%28master%29/builds Regards, Tim I think anything currently *unbound* gets run on the master since it's the only 'slave' that isn't reserved for tied jobs (last I looked). Nige
Re: Hudson machine utilization
On Mon November 16 2009 11:23:42 am Nigel Daley wrote: > I think anything currently *unbound* gets run on the master since it's > the only 'slave' that isn't reserved for tied jobs (last I looked). So would it make sense to "untick" that tick box for vesta and/or minerva? -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org http://www.dankulp.com/blog
