and in danger (was Re: [Box-Admins] Disk space usage on box3)

David T. Lewis lewis at
Sat Dec 7 15:37:23 UTC 2013

On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 10:17:06AM +0000, Frank Shearar wrote:
> 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

Hi Frank,

Cool, I think we just came to the identical conclusions :) I was just
about to send the following email to you before I read this, so here
is what I was going to say:

I think we can pretty easily free up a bunch of disk space. It turns out
that our SqueakTrunk job is currently using 44% of the entire disk space
on box3, and a lot of that can probably be freed without harming anything
for the SqueakTrunk job itself.

Here are some things I think we can do, but I want to run it by you before
actually changing anything:

1) The build artifacts are TrunkImage.changes, TrunkImage.image,
TrunkImage.manifest and TrunkImage.version. The image and changes files
take most of the space, so we could add a build step to compress them
like this:

$ zip TrunkImage.changes TrunkImage.image TrunkImage.manifest TrunkImage.version
  adding: TrunkImage.changes (deflated 77%)
  adding: TrunkImage.image (deflated 54%)
  adding: TrunkImage.manifest (deflated 54%)
  adding: TrunkImage.version (stored 0%)

Then we can specify as the build artifact. This will save
a lot of disk space in the future.

2) The Jenkins job is saving all of the build artifacts since we began
running the job.  I'm not sure if that's what you want it to do, but if
the old artifacts are not needed, then we can change the job configuration.
In the "Archive the Artifacts" section of the job configuration, there
is a setting for "Discard all but the last successful/stable artifact to
save disk space". That might more aggressive that we want, but there must
be some setting that would let us trim the archives down to what we really

3) If we run out of disk space and need to take emergency action, we can
just compress the older build artifacts (from the unix command line). It's
probably not good to do this outside of Jenkins tools, but at least we would
not lose the actual data, and it would free up a lot of disk space right away.

4) If we don't need all of the historical artifacts, and if we can't figure
out how to trim them down through Jenkins job configurations, then I can
delete the older ones from the unix command line.

5) Not directly related to disk space, but we should probably also enable the
"Abort the build if it's stuck" option under "Build Environment". We can set
it to time out after 30 minutes or so, and I think that might cure our problem
with stuck ruby and squeakvm processes.


> On 7 December 2013 01:23, David T. Lewis <lewis at> 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 side other than move the
> >> >repository to another box (which is not easy to do). Short term we need to
> >> >tidy up the jobs where can can.
> >> >
> >> >Dave
> >>
> >> Thanks Dave,
> >>
> >> I agree that it is probably easier to find some space to clear up under
> >> but I think the community as a whole has to give some
> >> serious thought to the future of
> >
> > I fully agree that the community should give some consideration to how
> > 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" 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
> >

More information about the Box-Admins mailing list