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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---