On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Rob Mandeville
wrote:
> There are some hairy reasons for running a job on the master, specifically if
> you need to mess with Jenkins internals. If you don't need to do that (and
> if you have to ask, you don't), just reduce the number of executors on the
> ma
, think
about the JVM settings first--adding 64GB to your host won't help if Java is
only taking 4GB of it.
--Rob
-Original Message-
From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikes...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:12 PM
To: jenkinsci-users
Cc: Rob Mandeville
Subject: Re: Spec
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:21 AM, David Brooks wrote:
> Hi Rob, rginga -
>
> Excellent information, exactly what I was hoping to see.
>
> For the RAM requirements, would it be safe to estimate the required RAM on
> the master by looking at the combined utilization of the build servers? For
> insta
Hi Rob, rginga -
Excellent information, exactly what I was hoping to see.
For the RAM requirements, would it be safe to estimate the required RAM on
the master by looking at the combined utilization of the build servers?
For instance, I see that the Jenkins and Java processes combined are usi
If you move most/all of the actual jobs off to slave nodes on other machines,
then the Jenkins server host needs to:
· Interact with the user (minimal hardware requirements if your users
don’t use auto-refresh; auto-refresh could greatly increase CPU needs)
· Retrieve data, art
Dave, I am not as informed as others in this group, but my experience has been
that the master does very little work as compared to the slaves. Yes, build
logs and archived files are uploaded from a slave to the master, but I have not
run into any issues with IO performance.
I run a Windows mas
