On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 4:52 AM, Anders Hammar <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I was thinking about that one. Didn't really come to a good conclusion. > > Pros: > * Easy to scale out > * Easy to start up (you don't have to buy the hardware etc) > > Cons: > * Security (if you need to retrieve the code and you don't want to have your > version management system publicly available) > * If the repo manager is locally and the build server is externally, > retrieving artifacts will be slower. However, possibly not a big issue > unless you need to squeeze out that extra performance (time wise). > * Cost (?) > > What I'm thinking is that it could be an easy way to get started, but as > your build server(s) is most likely something you want for a long time and > it will be working constantly, I think it might make more sense having it > locally on your own hardware. It think it will be far more expensive to have > it "in the cloud" compared to this. However, I don't have any figures to > back this up, it's just my guess. > > Anyone else having any thoughts?
I'm thinking along the same lines. The virtual cloud instances are good for sporadic use but aren't as cost effective for around the clock cpu / disk io that you would see from a CI system. Also a CI system puts a heavy load on your repository (push and pull) so it needs to be near the repo. Having your repo in the cloud invalidates many of the benefits, namely proxying and caching that speeds up your builds and provides you the ability to continue working when your network is unstable. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
