Re: Increasing ASF Jenkins bandwidth

> On Jul 11, 2017, at 3:41 AM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > > Thanks Steve! > > How came that we got a second machine? Is it a VM or is it some other > (sponsored one)? It is a VM. See . INFRA-14004 was closed as “Won’t Fix” a

RE: Increasing ASF Jenkins bandwidth

: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 7:06 AM > To: dev@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: Increasing ASF Jenkins bandwidth > > Well that’s bizarre - as Pono mentioned on thread “New Jenkins build node”, > we now have a second Jenkins node named “lucene2". Both the “lucene" > and the

Re: Increasing ASF Jenkins bandwidth

Well that’s bizarre - as Pono mentioned on thread “New Jenkins build node”, we now have a second Jenkins node named “lucene2". Both the “lucene" and the “lucene2" node are under the “lucene” label, which should cause the jobs to be distributed across the two nodes without any configuration

RE: Increasing ASF Jenkins bandwidth

Hi, > > I don't understand the background: we currently have Lucene node, so why > a second one? > > Our randomized testing regime means the more bandwidth, the better. Are > you seriously arguing against increasing testing frequency? Of course not! When reading your original e-mail, I was

Re: Increasing ASF Jenkins bandwidth

> There has been discussion of automatically testing patches on JIRA issues (SOLR-10912). As far as I’m concerned, we won’t be able to consider that until/unless we have more Jenkins bandwidth. I don't think we need to dedicate resources to Yetus patch testing. It runs on generic ASF nodes. On

Re: Increasing ASF Jenkins bandwidth

Hi Uwe, > On Jun 28, 2017, at 4:10 PM, Uwe Schindler wrote: > > I don't understand the background: we currently have Lucene node, so why a > second one? Our randomized testing regime means the more bandwidth, the better. Are you seriously arguing against increasing testing

Re: Increasing ASF Jenkins bandwidth

I'm not up on the background of the original request entirely, but just to be clear the 2nd node is not for the Ref Guide. AFAIUI, Ref Guide builds are already running on a separate node previously reserved for any ASF project documentation builds. This came up as part of a separate conversation

Re: Increasing ASF Jenkins bandwidth

Hi, I don't understand the background: we currently have Lucene node, so why a second one? The ref guide stuff can easily run on other nodes. The Lucene node was added so we are able to run randomized tests all day long without blocking other projects. So as long as we have the current

Increasing ASF Jenkins bandwidth

In an offline discussion, Cassandra Targett pointed out to me that the INFRA issue set up to provision an additional Jenkins node for the Lucene project has been closed as Won’t Fix, because: > Per [~gstein] we will not be provisioning any