[Box-Admins] More CI jobs

Frank Shearar frank.shearar at gmail.com
Tue Sep 9 15:56:06 UTC 2014

On 9 September 2014 14:45, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
> Yes, we're running out of disk space on box3. I think the best would be to
> ask the SFC for more disk[1].

That would be ideal, if possible.

I particularly _don't_ want to have the CI jobs using VMs outside
their workspace. Right now, you can look at a build, and find out
immediately what VM it's using. You can upgrade the VMs used by CI any
time you want, without interrupting other services on the box. And so

If we have to conserve disk space, we can do things like delete unused
artifacts (especially VMs) after we're finished, at the cost of
increased network traffic and build times. The CI scripts can
bootstrap their environment (except for external dependencies like
ruby and cmake). We just need to be careful then not to delete
_useful_ artifacts like updated images, test results, benchmark
reports, and so on.

> Also jenkins is getting rather old on the box. Is it still necessary to
> stick to the currently installed version[2]?

It'll always be a balancing act between just having something work,
and keeping up with the bleeding edge. I opted to have stuff just
work, but perhaps once I've finished this current round of CI hacking,
we should upgrade Jenkins.


> Levente
> [1]https://www.gandi.net/hosting/iaas/disk_resize
> [2]http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/box-admins/2013-July/001414.html
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Frank Shearar wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I thought it high time to break up a mega-job
>> (http://build.squeak.org/job/ExternalPackages/) into (some of) its
>> subparts, because the mega-job takes far too long to run, and makes it
>> hard to understand the current state of play in the Squeak ecosystem.
>> A side effect of this is more disk usage. Please let me know if I need
>> to get more creative with my disk usage.
>> Thanks,
>> frank

More information about the Box-Admins mailing list