Internal hosting for Jenkins for short-term [RFC]

[Itamar Heim]

On 04/24/2012 04:54 AM, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 04/19/2012 12:12 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>>
>> I'm adding hardware for jenkins to the agenda for the weekly
>> meeting next week.
>
> So we're a bit stuck in a circle, because our current hosting for
> Jenkins is sub-par due to AIUI EC2 not being the best environment for
> continuous integration testing. I'd like to bring more on-par
> resources from Red Hat, but so far the ones we have gotten access to
> live inside of the private network. I don't yet see anything becoming
> available from Red Hat for external usage until after June 2012.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if that situation were similar with other
> people and their supporting organizations or other private hosting
> situation. External hosting is sometimes more precious than internal labs.
>
> I was wondering if it is worth it for the short-term to do CI runs on
> internal networks and publish just the results externally?
> Functionally this is the same for some people, but for anyone who
> wants to help with Infrastructure, it's a closed door. (There may be
> other considerations to having Jenkins internally that I'm not aware of.)
>
> But it might be worth doing for a short period - six months? - to get
> us what we need on the development side. Itamar reports to me that
> performance with the EC2 hosts is 3x slower than what they get in
> their lab. That's a lot of wasted CI time.
>
> Of course, Infrastructure supporting that idea means that if anyone
> has private machines they want to use as Jenkins hosts, we'd want to
> hook them up with the same situation (somehow.)
>
> Ideally, we'll get more hosts provided by community members and
> supporters, but currently we don't have that. I would want to set a
> target end-date to return Jenkins et al to external-only hosting so
> the Infrastructure team can be a full participant.
>
> My original goal in setting up Infrastructure as fully open was based
> on my experience in other projects, but those are already established
> projects with donated hosting by many providers and none of them
> started out with that much external hosting. Realistically, this may
> be something we need to work toward.
>
> What do all of you think?


my view is until we can resolve how to do this over publicly accessible 
community resources via some hosting provider, private CI is better to 
no CI.
it will give the email/gerrit comment the patch broke a test, but not 
sure more details than that to lookup (hopefully, we can solve this by 
having the CI server push the reports out to the community one in EC2 
somehow to make this more useful).
however, it is not trivial to 'share' CI hosts across private networks, 
as the jenkins server needs access to the slaves (other than 
partitioning the responsibility for some of the jobs).



>
> BTW, if anyone knows KVM using hosting providers who want to support
> oVirt development, getting us physical hosts and virtual machines
> would be a *great* way to help. We can talk with the Board about
> adding them to the sponsors page.
>
> - - Karsten
> - --
> name:  Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Community Architect
> team:    Red Hat Community Architecture&  Leadership
> uri:              http://communityleadershipteam.org
>                           http://TheOpenSourceWay.org
> gpg:                                        AD0E0C41
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iD8DBQFPlgfY2ZIOBq0ODEERAnhaAJwMoIoBBX1lNMxGZADux48Xj7tvzwCg4mep
> TNNK7ymfuZ0C6kKBtm30+XE=
> =wcba
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Infra mailing list
> Infra at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/infra