Are you saying that Java, Ant and Maven do not know how to distribute work to different cores?
To repeat my main concern: our Jenkins jobs often use shared resources. If you want to take the time to fix that, feel free, but I do not know how you are going to keep two jobs from both trying to launch Flash Player Debugger at the same time and open the same socket to communicate with it, or try to parse the flashlog.txt that they have both written to. The royale-asjs job will use the royale-compiler workspace to get the compiler. If the compiler is building, the jars are not there and the royale-asjs build fails. There is also only so much memory and some of our jobs use all of it and I'm not sure if jobs slowed down due to paging memory and writing/reading from disk, even if it is an SSD. I'm done for tonight, but that's what I was seeing last time I tried to have both master and an agent running jobs in parallel. Thanks, -Alex On 4/17/20, 11:52 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <[email protected]> wrote: A typical setup would be to have 0 executors on master and at least n number of executors on each agent, where n = number of cpu cores. I see that the current VM has 2 cores. So, I started with setting the num executors on the current agent to 2. This should improve things quite a bit. If this doesn't work, I will create a new VM and make it the slave agent of the current Jenkins master. Thanks, Om On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:31 PM Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > On your VM or mine? I don't think mine can handle it. I used to run jobs > of master and agent and we got lots of failures and jobs took forever. If > two jobs are trying to run tests with the shared Flash Player Debugger, for > example, you won't get consistent results. > > -Alex > > On 4/17/20, 11:23 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I just realized that we have only one Agent (node) listed under > Jenkins. I > am going to add at least one more node to start with. > > Thanks, > Om > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 9:58 AM Alex Harui <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I think I followed the instructions and enabled SSH. > > > > On 4/16/20, 9:37 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I haven’t gotten it to work. Could be ssh needs to be enabled on > the > > VM [1]. This is nice to have but not essential. So Alex, let me know > if you > > want to try that, otherwise I’ll suspend my efforts on this. > > > > [1] > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedium.com%2Ftechinpieces%2Fpractical-azure-how-to-enable-ssh-on-azure-vm-84d8fba8103e&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C833f9530b95943d3288908d7e3651005%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637227895512817076&sdata=hxkdbHxBDgkPwstUWJME54TKz9R2X4RdeWpaVzqHQ4g%3D&reserved=0 > > > > From: Yishay Weiss<mailto:[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2020 5:09 PM > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: RE: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI > > > > I’d like to try and install an ssh server. Can anyone think of a > > reason not to do that? I’m asking in terms of security, and if there > might > > be a problem because it’s a VM. > > > > Thanks. > > > > From: Yishay Weiss<mailto:[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 10:02 AM > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: RE: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI > > > > Related, as most (all?) of the instructions don’t require > anything but > > a shell wouldn’t it be easier and faster to access the machine with > ssh > > [1], rather than using remote desktop? > > > > [1] > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.microsoft.com%2Fen-us%2Fwindows-server%2Fadministration%2Fopenssh%2Fopenssh_install_firstuse&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C833f9530b95943d3288908d7e3651005%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637227895512817076&sdata=7xKvZszvpz7FovUSvShKXfYqh1b7ulWgW0ZKUkwP%2B%2F4%3D&reserved=0 > > > > From: Yishay Weiss<mailto:[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:55 AM > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: RE: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI > > > > Can’t you do that with remote desktop? > > > > ________________________________ > > From: OmPrakash Muppirala <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:51:25 AM > > To: Apache Royale Development <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: Prioritize Release Jobs on CI > > > > Alex, > > > > I believe this is your personal Azure subscription right? Any > chance > > I can > > get access to it so I can try to copy the image out the machine > and > > redeploy it somewhere else? > > > > Thanks, > > Om > > > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 6:18 PM OmPrakash Muppirala < > > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I can help set this up on Azure. Give me some time to work > out the > > > details? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Om > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2020, 11:49 AM Harbs <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >> OK. Good to know. > > >> > > >> > On Apr 12, 2020, at 9:45 PM, Alex Harui > <[email protected] > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > FWIW, I just looked and the longest job in the release > steps so > > far is > > >> 8 minutes. Most are under 2 minutes. There might be jobs > later > > that take > > >> longer that we haven't run yet. IMO, the issue isn't speed > of the > > machine, > > >> it is just that we are sharing the machine with longer jobs > (1 hour > > for > > >> TourDeFlexMigration). And again, the machine will be idle for > > stretches of > > >> time while the RM verifies artifacts after each step. > > >> > > > >> > -Alex > > >> > > > >> > On 4/12/20, 11:32 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected] > <mailto: > > >> [email protected]>> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Fair enough. > > >> > > > >> > I expect builds to be somewhere between 10 and 20 times > faster > > on a > > >> powerful machine. > > >> > > > >> > Yeah. It’s probably going to be a bit of work changing > the > > server, > > >> but probably worth it in the long run. > > >> > > > >> > I think I’ll try this when I do the next release unless > Yishay > > wants > > >> to work with me on this for this release — but I’m not going > to be > > able to > > >> help until after Passover (i.e. next week). > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Harbs > > >> > > > >> >> On Apr 12, 2020, at 9:22 PM, Alex Harui > <[email protected] > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> The Azure portal says: Standard F2s_v2 (2 vcpus, 4 GiB > memory) > > >> >> > > >> >> I think I am reading changes to the build process in your > > >> suggestions. I do not really want to spend more of my time > on this > > >> process. But if you want to do the work, that's fine with me. > > >> >> > > >> >> -Alex > > >> >> > > >> >> On 4/12/20, 10:57 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected] > <mailto: > > >> [email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto: > > >> [email protected]>>> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> What kind of horsepower is included in the free Azure > account? > > >> >> > > >> >> The server I mentioned builds (considerably) faster than > my own > > >> local machine. The ci server seems to build many times slower. > > >> >> > > >> >> One thing we can do to minimize running server time > would be to > > >> transfer the artifacts to storage instead of keeping them on > the > > server. On > > >> AWS, I’d probably use S3. Not sure what the similar service on > > Azure is > > >> called. > > >> >> > > >> >>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 8:26 PM, Alex Harui > > <[email protected] > > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> OK, that's pretty much how I understand Azure as well. > The key > > thing > > >> is that "running" includes time where the CI server is not > running > > any > > >> Jenkins jobs. The CI Server steps might take only a few > hours of > > actual > > >> server time, but there is time where the RM is verifying > artifacts > > locally > > >> so you'd be paying for that or the RM would have to keep > shutting > > down and > > >> restarting. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Seems like it would be cheaper/simpler to get the free > MSDN > > account > > >> and leave it running. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> -Alex > > >> >>> > > >> >>> On 4/12/20, 10:15 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected] > <mailto: > > >> [email protected]>> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> My experience is with AWS. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> I assume Microsoft has similar offerings, but I don’t > have > > >> experience with Azure. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> AWS has on-demand EC2 instances which you pay for only > the > > actual > > >> time that they are running.[1] > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Instances can be started and stopped via command line > (or via > > the > > >> web interface) as long as you have valid credentials to do so. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> For example: an m5.4xlarge instance has 16 cores and > costs > > about > > >> $1.5 per hour. On a machine like that, a full build would > probably > > take > > >> less than 10 minutes. It’s probably possible to do a full > release > > with only > > >> a few hours of server time. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Leaving a server like that running all the time would get > > expensive, > > >> but if it’s just spun up for releases, you’d get very fast > builds > > at a > > >> reasonable price. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> I’d be happy to pay $10-$50 (and possibly more) per > release to > > make > > >> the release process painless for the RM. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> [1] > > >> > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C833f9530b95943d3288908d7e3651005%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637227895512817076&sdata=BZzHQVAkum497LTo%2BiTThqSgnfPERqSgklluj8QrLKE%3D&reserved=0 > > >> < > > >> > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C833f9530b95943d3288908d7e3651005%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637227895512822068&sdata=CdCoGjKmHETJNgapXtJy4dnAjumpJE7fSEU0FhiN6g8%3D&reserved=0 > > >> >< > > >> > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C833f9530b95943d3288908d7e3651005%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637227895512822068&sdata=CdCoGjKmHETJNgapXtJy4dnAjumpJE7fSEU0FhiN6g8%3D&reserved=0 > > >> < > > >> > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C833f9530b95943d3288908d7e3651005%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637227895512822068&sdata=CdCoGjKmHETJNgapXtJy4dnAjumpJE7fSEU0FhiN6g8%3D&reserved=0 > > >> >>< > > >> > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C833f9530b95943d3288908d7e3651005%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637227895512822068&sdata=CdCoGjKmHETJNgapXtJy4dnAjumpJE7fSEU0FhiN6g8%3D&reserved=0 > > >> < > > >> > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C833f9530b95943d3288908d7e3651005%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637227895512827061&sdata=71%2BpJHsGmOMC%2Bv9lQJdu00Rx8X20SXW5XPKRByL6ftY%3D&reserved=0 > > >> >< > > >> > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C833f9530b95943d3288908d7e3651005%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637227895512827061&sdata=71%2BpJHsGmOMC%2Bv9lQJdu00Rx8X20SXW5XPKRByL6ftY%3D&reserved=0 > > >> < > > >> > > > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C833f9530b95943d3288908d7e3651005%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637227895512827061&sdata=71%2BpJHsGmOMC%2Bv9lQJdu00Rx8X20SXW5XPKRByL6ftY%3D&reserved=0 > > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > >> >>>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:45 PM, Alex Harui > > <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> I'm not very experienced with spinning up servers. The > CI > > server we > > >> are using is effectively free, based on a generous donation > from > > Microsoft > > >> of MSDN accounts to ASF committers. So I leave it up 24/7, > and > > share the > > >> RDP access on private@. I think any other ASF committer > could do > > the > > >> same. IIRC, if that server actually is stopped, I have to > use my > > personal > > >> (unshared) MSDN credentials to start it again. AIUI, if I > > actually paid > > >> for the server, it would cost me to leave it running even if > it > > didn't run > > >> jobs between releases. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Is that what you are basically saying? I think it might > be > > best if > > >> another committer got a CI server going via the MS donation > and > > could leave > > >> it up 24/7. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> -Alex > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> On 4/12/20, 9:28 AM, "Harbs" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> I’m willing to do this. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Considering that the release will be run infrequently, it > > should be > > >> doable to have a relatively powerful server that could be > spun up on > > >> demand. This is something I have setup for my own releases. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> The only complication would be that each RM would need > valid > > >> credentials to spin up the server. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> Harbs > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:10 PM, Alex Harui > > <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> A better solution, IMO, is for someone else to offer up > a CI > > server > > >> only for release jobs. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
