On 2/28/20 4:22 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:31 PM Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 05:34, Eric Anholt <e...@anholt.net> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 12:48 AM Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 18:18, Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 03:38, Dave Airlie <airl...@gmail.com> wrote:
b) we probably need to take a large step back here.
Look at this from a sponsor POV, why would I give X.org/fd.o
sponsorship money that they are just giving straight to google to pay
for hosting credits? Google are profiting in some minor way from these
hosting credits being bought by us, and I assume we aren't getting any
sort of discounts here. Having google sponsor the credits costs google
substantially less than having any other company give us money to do
it.
The last I looked, Google GCP / Amazon AWS / Azure were all pretty
comparable in terms of what you get and what you pay for them.
Obviously providers like Packet and Digital Ocean who offer bare-metal
services are cheaper, but then you need to find someone who is going
to properly administer the various machines, install decent
monitoring, make sure that more storage is provisioned when we need
more storage (which is basically all the time), make sure that the
hardware is maintained in decent shape (pretty sure one of the fd.o
machines has had a drive in imminent-failure state for the last few
months), etc.
Given the size of our service, that's a much better plan (IMO) than
relying on someone who a) isn't an admin by trade, b) has a million
other things to do, and c) hasn't wanted to do it for the past several
years. But as long as that's the resources we have, then we're paying
the cloud tradeoff, where we pay more money in exchange for fewer
problems.
Admin for gitlab and CI is a full time role anyways. The system is
definitely not self sustaining without time being put in by you and
anholt still. If we have $75k to burn on credits, and it was diverted
to just pay an admin to admin the real hw + gitlab/CI would that not
be a better use of the money? I didn't know if we can afford $75k for
an admin, but suddenly we can afford it for gitlab credits?
As I think about the time that I've spent at google in less than a
year on trying to keep the lights on for CI and optimize our
infrastructure in the current cloud environment, that's more than the
entire yearly budget you're talking about here. Saying "let's just
pay for people to do more work instead of paying for full-service
cloud" is not a cost optimization.
Yes, we could federate everything back out so everyone runs their own
builds and executes those. Tinderbox did something really similar to
that IIRC; not sure if Buildbot does as well. Probably rules out
pre-merge testing, mind.
Why? does gitlab not support the model? having builds done in parallel
on runners closer to the test runners seems like it should be a thing.
I guess artifact transfer would cost less then as a result.
Let's do some napkin math. The biggest artifacts cost we have in Mesa
is probably meson-arm64/meson-arm (60MB zipped from meson-arm64,
downloaded by 4 freedreno and 6ish lava, about 100 pipelines/day,
makes ~1.8TB/month ($180 or so). We could build a local storage next
to the lava dispatcher so that the artifacts didn't have to contain
the rootfs that came from the container (~2/3 of the insides of the
zip file), but that's another service to build and maintain. Building
the drivers once locally and storing it would save downloading the
other ~1/3 of the inside of the zip file, but that requires a big
enough system to do builds in time.
I'm planning on doing a local filestore for google's lava lab, since I
need to be able to move our xml files off of the lava DUTs to get the
xml results we've become accustomed to, but this would not bubble up
to being a priority for my time if I wasn't doing it anyway. If it
takes me a single day to set all this up (I estimate a couple of
weeks), that costs my employer a lot more than sponsoring the costs of
the inefficiencies of the system that has accumulated.
I'm not trying to knock the engineering works the CI contributors have
done at all, but I've never seen a real discussion about costs until
now. Engineers aren't accountants.
The thing we seem to be missing here is fiscal responsibility. I know
this email is us being fiscally responsible, but it's kinda after the
fact.
I cannot commit my employer to spending a large amount of money (> 0
actually) without a long and lengthy process with checks and bounds.
Can you?
The X.org board has budgets and procedures as well. I as a developer
of Mesa should not be able to commit the X.org foundation to spending
large amounts of money without checks and bounds.
The CI infrastructure lacks any checks and bounds. There is no link
between editing .gitlab-ci/* and cashflow. There is no link to me
adding support for a new feature to llvmpipe that blows out test times
(granted it won't affect CI budget but just an example).
We're working to get the logging in place to know which projects
exactly burn down the money so that we can take specific actions. If
needed. So pretty soon you wont be able to just burn down endless
amounts of cash with a few gitlab-ci commits. Or at least not for long
until we catch you and you either fix things up or CI is gone for your
project.
The fact that clouds run on credit means that it's not possible to say
budget 30K and say when that runs out it runs out, you end up getting
bills for ever increasing amounts that you have to cover, with nobody
"responsible" for ever reducing those bills. Higher Faster Further
baby comes to mind.
We're working on this, since it's the boards responsibility to be on
top of stuff. It's simply that we didn't expect a massive growth of
this scale and this quickly, so we're a bit behind on the controlling
aspect.
Also I guess it wasnt clear, but the board decision yesterday was the
stop loss order where we cut the cord (for CI at least). So yeah the
short term budget is firmly in place now.
Has X.org actually allocated the remaining cash in it's bank account
to this task previously? Was there plans for this money that can't be
executed now because we have to pay the cloud fees? If we continue to
May and the X.org bank account hits 0, can XDC happen?
There's numbers elsewhere in this thread, but if you'd read the
original announcement it states that the stop loss would still
guarantee that we can pay for everything for at least one year. We're
not going to get even close to 0 in the bank account.
So yeah XDC happens, and it'll also still happen next year. Also fd.o
servers will keep running. The only thing we might need to switch off
is the CI support.
Budgeting and cloud is hard, the feedback loops are messy. In the old
system the feedback loop was simple, we don't have admin time or money
for servers we don't get the features, cloud allows us to get the
features and enjoy them and at some point in the future the bill gets
paid by someone else. Credit cards lifestyles all the way.
Uh ... where exactly do you get the credit card approach from? SPI is
legally not allowed to extend us a credit (we're not a legal org
anymore), so if we hit 0 it's out real quick. No credit for us. If SPI
isnt on top of that it's their loss (but they're getting pretty good
at tracking stuff with the contractor they now have and all that).
Which is not going to happen btw, if you've read the announcement mail
and all that.
Cheers, Daniel
Sorry to enter mid conversation. You may want to see how the
GCC test Farm does it or the Yocto Project. I do get their different
projects but they seem to be managing fine. I'm not sure of
their funding but I do recall that a lot of the machines I use
for work on the farm are donated from IBM or some company.
Not sure if you can get a company(ies) to donate some machines
and store them in a data center like GCC or the Yocto Project,
Nick
Like maybe we can grow up here and find sponsors to cover all of this,
but it still feels a bit backwards from a fiscal pov.
Again I'm not knocking the work people have done at all, CI is very
valuable to the projects involved, but that doesn't absolve us from
costs.
Dave.
_______________________________________________
xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
