On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 11:03:24 -0400
seth vidal <skvidal(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:33:51 -0600
Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote:
> There's a few things we could do on fas load:
> a) add more fas servers.
> b) reduce the number of runs. How often do we change someone in
> sysadmin-noc, sysadmin-main, sysadmin-build?
> c) move to a system where we only re-run fasClient when there is a
I'm thinking for the hosts which are sysadmin-ish only - do C.
for the publicish hosts continue to poll fas directly.
- hosted, people, bastion, publictests == poll
- everything else is a set built and pushed to them.
Yeah, the trick is knowing when there is a change that affects them...
I wonder if we could make fas smarter. Have a serial # for each group.
It pulls and keeps track of that. Then it pulls again but just asks
"what serial # do you have for groups x, y, z". Probibly too much added
complexity I guess.
> I'd agree collectd off probibly. Or at least a seperate one
> needed to monitor them.
I'm not sure what benefit we get from collectd on transient builders,
On our long-running hosts I understand but not on the builders.
Yeah, the only case I can see is so we could see how loaded they are...
and we might have better ways to tell that.
> Yeah, we could hopefully have another network thats larger than
> for the arm builders.
I can imagine various network changes should easily allow us to
allocate larger than a /24 to the internal build network.
> I'm sure some of this will be a process of 'oh no, what
we have now
> doesn't scale, lets fix it'. Of course some of it we can get ready
> for up front too.
yay for planning! :)
> Overall I like the idea of the automated builder re-install and
> think it will get us more ready for things like a large arm
Then I will get crackin' on making it work.