On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Evan Martin <e...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Nicolas Sylvain<nsylv...@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > The underlying problem with buildbot is the database format, which is
> just
> > hundred of
> > thousand of files on the harddrive, with no "seek" capability, and the
> fact
> > that the
> > webserver itself is single threaded.
> > We currently have 63 slaves on our main waterfall. I think this is too
> > many for what
> > buildbot can really support. We would ideally need to split it.
>
> Can we get upstream buildbot devs involved in this discussion? It
> seems they ought to be able to scale better than they have.
I talked to them a little. They do plan some of that for their 1.0 release,
but they
said that it was not on the radar until then.
>
>
> It seems to me a caching layer that only ever hit the "backend" every
> ten seconds would allow it ten seconds to grind through its
> computations, which should be more than sufficient, without any extra
> splitting up required. That is, we should (a) fix the proxy and (b)
> make every use the proxy.
That makes a lot of sense. I agree that we should fix the proxy, and
make more people use it. Some direct buildbot access would still be
required internally to force a build and stuff like that.
>
> > Q3: What kind of auto-refresh do we need?
> > We used to be at 60 secs for a long time, and I changed it a couple of
> > weeks ago to 90 secs.
> > No one complained, so I guess this is good. Should we go even higher than
> > that?
>
> I personally hate auto-refresh. We should make it opt-in since I
> doubt most users need it and it adds load. I expect many people
> (myself included) leave the buildbot page open in a background tab and
> have it continually refreshing despite not looking at it.
>
> (My other common use case: the tree is red, I start scrolling down to
> see what's gone wrong, and then the page refreshes out from under me
> and I lose where I was looking.)
Yep, a lot of people told me the same thing. Some other told me they would
like
a faster reload. Now i'm tempted to let the user control the reload and not
give
a default one.
>
> > - Get a better machine. It's already running on a dedicated dual quad
> core
> > nehalem server
> > with 24gb of RAM and 15k rpm drives.
>
> This is absurdly powerful! It should have all the data necessary to
> generate the page in RAM already, no need for even touching the disks
> (?).
Yeah, i'm not too sure how to debug this. When I strace the process I only
see file reads, scrolling, like crazy, all the time.
Nicolas
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
