Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

On Tue, 29 May 2018 at 14:21, L. David Baron wrote: > > On Monday 2018-05-28 15:52 -0400, Chris AtLee wrote: > > Here's a bit of a strawman proposal...What if we keep the > > {mozilla-central,mozilla-inbound,autoland}-{linux,linux64,macosx64,win32,win64}{,-pgo}/ > > directories in

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

On Monday 2018-05-28 15:52 -0400, Chris AtLee wrote: > Here's a bit of a strawman proposal...What if we keep the > {mozilla-central,mozilla-inbound,autoland}-{linux,linux64,macosx64,win32,win64}{,-pgo}/ > directories in tinderbox-builds for now, and delete all the others. Does > that cover the

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

On Sun, 20 May 2018 at 19:40, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > On Fri, 18 May 2018 13:13:04 -0400, Chris AtLee wrote: > > IMO, it's not reasonable to keep CI builds around forever, so the question > > is then how long to keep them? 1 year doesn't quite cover a full ESR cycle, > > would 18 months be

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

On Fri, 18 May 2018 13:13:04 -0400, Chris AtLee wrote: > IMO, it's not reasonable to keep CI builds around forever, so the question > is then how long to keep them? 1 year doesn't quite cover a full ESR cycle, > would 18 months be sufficient for most cases? > > Alternatively, we could investigate

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

The discussion about what to do about these particular buildbot builds has naturally shifted into a discussion about what kind of retention policy is appropriate for CI builds. I believe that right now we keep all CI build artifacts for 1 year. Nightly and release builds are kept forever. There's

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 8:00 AM, Jean-Yves Avenard wrote: > Hi > On 12/05/2018 04:47, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > >> Just to be clear, when doing a bisect, one _can_ just deal with local >> builds. But the point is that then it takes tens of minutes per build as >> you point

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

Can we move the builds temporarily and see if it affects workflows over a few months and if not, then remove them? Mike On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Tom Ritter wrote: > I agree with ekr in general, but I would also be curious to discover > what failures we would

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

I agree with ekr in general, but I would also be curious to discover what failures we would experience in practice and how we could overcome them. I think many of the issues experienced with local builds are preventable by doing a TC-like build; just build in a docker container (for Linux/Mac)

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

>On 5/11/18 7:06 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: >> Artifact retention and expiration boils down to a >> trade-off between the cost of storage and the convenience of accessing >> something immediately (as opposed to waiting several dozen minutes to >> populate the cache). > >Just to be clear, when doing

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

Hi On 12/05/2018 04:47, Boris Zbarsky wrote: Just to be clear, when doing a bisect, one _can_ just deal with local builds.  But the point is that then it takes tens of minutes per build as you point out.  So a bisect task that might otherwise take 10-15 minutes total (1 minute per downloaded

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Ted Mielczarek > wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018, at 1:11 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > > > > mozregression won't be able to bisect into inbound branches then, > but I

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

On 5/11/18 11:28 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: You could trigger dozens of builds on Taskcluster and they would all come back in the time it takes a single build to run. This is doable, and basically corresponds to doing N-ary search for N>2. With some tooling support so you don't have to pick

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:47 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 5/11/18 7:06 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > >> Artifact retention and expiration boils down to a >> trade-off between the cost of storage and the convenience of accessing >> something immediately (as opposed to waiting

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

On 5/11/18 7:06 PM, Gregory Szorc wrote: Artifact retention and expiration boils down to a trade-off between the cost of storage and the convenience of accessing something immediately (as opposed to waiting several dozen minutes to populate the cache). Just to be clear, when doing a bisect,

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:01 AM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2018, at 1:11 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > > > mozregression won't be able to bisect into inbound branches then, but I > > > believe we've always been expiring build artifacts created from > integration >

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

On 2018-05-09 2:58 PM, Andrew Halberstadt wrote: Going back to the original question, it looks like mozregression doesn't use the builds that Nick wants to remove anyway. So regardless of our retention policies, it looks like removing these builds would have no impact on mozregression's

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

Going back to the original question, it looks like mozregression doesn't use the builds that Nick wants to remove anyway. So regardless of our retention policies, it looks like removing these builds would have no impact on mozregression's effectiveness. Is that an accurate statement? -Andrew On

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

On 2018-05-09 2:01 PM, Ted Mielczarek wrote: It's useful for tracking down regressions no matter how old the regression is; I pretty regularly see mozregression finding useful data on bugs that regressed multiple years ago. To be clear here--we still have an archive of nightly builds dating

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

On Wed, May 9, 2018, at 1:11 PM, L. David Baron wrote: > > mozregression won't be able to bisect into inbound branches then, but I > > believe we've always been expiring build artifacts created from integration > > branches after a few months in any case. > > > > My impression was that people use

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

On 5/9/18 12:11 PM, L. David Baron wrote: It's useful for tracking down regressions no matter how old the regression is; I pretty regularly see mozregression finding useful data on bugs that regressed multiple years ago. I want to agree with David -- I recall one incident in particular where

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

On Wednesday 2018-05-09 12:39 -0400, William Lachance wrote: > On 2018-05-09 11:48 AM, Botond Ballo wrote: > > > Good question. I checked and it seems that the answer is no (yay). > > > > > > For nightly builds in mozregression, we fetch stuff out of: > > > > > >

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

On 2018-05-09 11:48 AM, Botond Ballo wrote: Good question. I checked and it seems that the answer is no (yay). For nightly builds in mozregression, we fetch stuff out of: https://archive.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/nightly/ For inbound builds, we've been using taskcluster for a while. What about

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

On 2018-05-09 4:59 AM, Xidorn Quan wrote: Would removing those files affect the ability of mozregression to locate pushes of old regressions? Good question. I checked and it seems that the answer is no (yay). For nightly builds in mozregression, we fetch stuff out of:

Re: Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

Would removing those files affect the ability of mozregression to locate pushes of old regressions? - Xidorn On Wed, May 9, 2018, at 4:49 PM, ntho...@mozilla.com wrote: > We have approximately 400 TB of old files in the two directories > firefox/tinderbox-builds and mobile/tinderbox-builds on >

Removing tinderbox-builds from archive.mozilla.org

We have approximately 400 TB of old files in the two directories firefox/tinderbox-builds and mobile/tinderbox-builds on archive.mozilla.org [1,2]. I'm suggesting it's time to remove them. The files come from pushes into the gecko repositories when the builds & tests were run on Buildbot. The