On build.eclipse.org I noticed loooong periods of no activity then massive build activity when integration points were coming up or there was a lot of activity in interrelated projects such as M2T and TMF. The SCM triggers are supoer helpful. But at least when I set up my build initially, it seemed that there were a number of reasons (or at least this was the typical way that projects happened to be doing it) to only have releng on SCM and have buckminster pull all of the actual build source. If people have their projects setup this way, they are going to have to schedule their builds so I could see contention happening from that. We should all be doing nightlies I imagine, so there could be some coordination to make sure that people aren't all picking the same time to trigger their builds in the case where they aren't using SCM trigger.
While on the topic, you *can* use SCM if you supply a corresponding local provider in your rmap for every VCS provider and actually seems to be the best way to do things in my mind. I guess the major downside there is that you're not actually testing wether your buckminster build works on a standalone basis, say for people materializing into their workspaces. But the really anal among us could test that by having a seperate infrequent build that uses the releng only approach.
On Sep 30, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Denis Roy wrote:
Trip, in theory that would be a good idea. But many builds are
launched from an SCM trigger, so the load naturally follows the work
days.
Denis
On 09/30/2010 12:32 PM, Trip Gilman wrote:
Do you think it might be helpful to
set up some type of calendar that at least tracks when people
have their various builds scheduled to run? This might cut
down on some of the rush hour effect to the servers.
Trip
On 9/30/10 9:58 AM, "Denis Roy" <denis.roy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Yesterday the slaves has eight
executors each, and we were having SSH issues. So I
followed Apache's lead and reduced the executors per slave.
Even when only one job is running, it seems to get spaced
out and no longer works, even if the slave and master are
still in harmony (pun not intended).
At this point I'm grasping at straws.
On 09/30/2010 10:43 AM, David Carver wrote:
Current backlog on Hudson
doesn't seem to be Master, but the Hudson-Slave1 and
Hudson-Slave2 servers. The number of executors on these
machines is way to low for the number of jobs we have. I
noticed that the number of executors were greatly reduced
yesterday.
Dave
On 09/30/2010 07:33 AM, Denis Roy wrote:
On 09/30/2010 10:25 AM,
David M Williams wrote:
But, we can't
all run all jobs on master.
Well, why not. Since the master is virtualized, why
don't we goose it up and crank up the executor threads
and see how it goes? Maybe then we'll all be able to
get some work done?
Is anyone game?
From: Matthias Sohn
<matthias.sohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:matthias.sohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Cross project
issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
<mailto:cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 09/30/2010
10:11 AM
Subject: [cross-project-issues-dev]
cbi-papyrus-0.7-nightly build is taking ages
Sent by: cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
This
build seems to take ages, according to Hudson it
started Sep 30, 2010 3:11:46
AM <https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/cbi-papyrus-0.7-nightly/1105/>
and
now we have Sep
30, 2010 10:08:33 AM, anything wrong here or is
this some massive
compile
or test job ?
https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/cbi-papyrus-0.7-nightly/1105/console <https://hudson.eclipse.org/hudson/job/cbi-papyrus-0.7-nightly/1105/console>
I
am just wondering since I am waiting since hours for
my few minutes egit build job
to
grab a free worker thread.
--
Matthias_______________________________________________
cross-project-issues-dev mailing list
cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cross-project-issues-dev
|
