Build.squeak.org and squeaksource.com in danger (was Re: [Box-Admins] Disk space usage on box3)

[Frank Shearar]

I mailed Ken separately, but the time zone happy conjunction must have
just passed. I'd have solved the problem (wipe out the
ReleaseSqueakTrunk/target/ directory (5.9GB)) except that I can't sudo
because I don't know the password for the account (because I don't
think I ever actually set it)! If some kind soul can change it and let
me know the password, I'll (a) change it to something only I know and
(b) wipe out the directory causing the problem.

As a separate step, we can think about how to both produce versioned
artifacts (i.e., zipfiles with versions in their file names) and not
eat all the disk space.

frank

On 7 December 2013 01:23, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 11:40:54AM -0600, Ken Causey wrote:
>> On 12/06/2013 11:19 AM, David T. Lewis wrote:
>> >Thanks Ken,
>> >
>> >I will look at it as soon as I get home, about 8 hours from now.
>> >
>> >Frank,
>> >
>> >There's not much I can do on the squeaksource.com side other than move the
>> >repository to another box (which is not easy to do). Short term we need to
>> >tidy up the build.squeak.org jobs where can can.
>> >
>> >Dave
>>
>> Thanks Dave,
>>
>> I agree that it is probably easier to find some space to clear up under
>> build.squeak.org but I think the community as a whole has to give some
>> serious thought to the future of squeaksource.com.
>
> I fully agree that the community should give some consideration to how
> squeaksource.com should be managed moving forward. But please do not
> portray this as a disk space problem. If that is the problem, then I'll
> pay for the disk space myself, just tell me where to send the check.
>
> The disk utilization problem is due to unnecessary accumulation of build
> artifacts from Jenkins jobs. It looks to me like most of this is accumulating
> by accident rather than by intent, and this can probably be easily fixed
> with some changes to the job configurations, with no loss of useful data
> from the jobs themselves. Clearly this needs to be addressed anyway,
> because if you doubled our available disk space we would be having the
> same discussion 12 months from now. So we need to fix it.
>
> I'll try to get with Frank over the weekend and see if we can clean up
> some easy stuff (Frank, I am "dtlewis290 at gmail.com" on gmail, so I'll
> try to connect with you there).
>
> Meanwhile I deleted a few unnecessary backup files under ~ssdotcom, which
> gives us another 1% free disk space to keep things going for another day
> or so ;-)
>
> Dave
>