> nice-ing the slave process at startup would be the way to do it, right?
Yup. We run the twisted buildslaves under 'nice', and it works pretty well.
It also reveals problems in tests that use absolute timeouts which fail when
the test runs slower than the author thought it was supposed to.
cheer
Trent Mick wrote:
> Specifically are you concerned about the readability of the waterfall
> page or other things (maintainability or something)? If the former,
> perhaps we could get some mileage out of the query args that Brian
> mentioned:
Indeed - that would be a solution. However, I wonder how
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> One concern might be performance. All buildbot slaves are contributed
> hardware. I don't mind the load on my Mac (it's a dual processor g5), but
> it may be an issue for other people. Does/can buildbot run at a lower
> priority or is it just a matter of nice-ing the s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote]
>
> Trent> Specifically are you concerned about the readability of the
> Trent> waterfall page or other things (maintainability or something)? If
> Trent> the former, perhaps we could get some mileage out of the query
> Trent> args that Brian mentioned:
>
On 1/11/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One concern might be performance. All buildbot slaves are contributed
> hardware. I don't mind the load on my Mac (it's a dual processor g5), but
> it may be an issue for other people.
I've "contributed" 2 machines. One is my personal
Trent> Specifically are you concerned about the readability of the
Trent> waterfall page or other things (maintainability or something)? If
Trent> the former, perhaps we could get some mileage out of the query
Trent> args that Brian mentioned:
One concern might be performance. Al
[Martin v. Loewis wrote]
> Brian Warner wrote:
> > That would work, although to be honest the buildbot is more about repeatable
> > builds. My first suggestion would be to have two separate Builders, one of
> > which does incremental builds, the other which does full (from-scratch)
> > builds.
>
>
Brian Warner wrote:
> That would work, although to be honest the buildbot is more about repeatable
> builds. My first suggestion would be to have two separate Builders, one of
> which does incremental builds, the other which does full (from-scratch)
> builds.
My concern is that then the number of
> > > To wipe out the build occassionally you could (presumably) add a
> > > starting step to the Python 'builder' (in the build master.cfg) to
> > > rm -rf $builddir
> > > every, say, Sunday night.
That would work, although to be honest the buildbot is more about repeatable
builds. My first
