What kind of horsepower is included in the free Azure account? The server I mentioned builds (considerably) faster than my own local machine. The ci server seems to build many times slower.
One thing we can do to minimize running server time would be to transfer the artifacts to storage instead of keeping them on the server. On AWS, I’d probably use S3. Not sure what the similar service on Azure is called. > On Apr 12, 2020, at 8:26 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > > OK, that's pretty much how I understand Azure as well. The key thing is that > "running" includes time where the CI server is not running any Jenkins jobs. > The CI Server steps might take only a few hours of actual server time, but > there is time where the RM is verifying artifacts locally so you'd be paying > for that or the RM would have to keep shutting down and restarting. > > Seems like it would be cheaper/simpler to get the free MSDN account and leave > it running. > > -Alex > > On 4/12/20, 10:15 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My experience is with AWS. > > I assume Microsoft has similar offerings, but I don’t have experience with > Azure. > > AWS has on-demand EC2 instances which you pay for only the actual time > that they are running.[1] > > Instances can be started and stopped via command line (or via the web > interface) as long as you have valid credentials to do so. > > For example: an m5.4xlarge instance has 16 cores and costs about $1.5 per > hour. On a machine like that, a full build would probably take less than 10 > minutes. It’s probably possible to do a full release with only a few hours of > server time. > > Leaving a server like that running all the time would get expensive, but > if it’s just spun up for releases, you’d get very fast builds at a reasonable > price. > > I’d be happy to pay $10-$50 (and possibly more) per release to make the > release process painless for the RM. > > > [1]https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9f9fa6f357c74ddd43fb08d7df051cfd%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223085366319686&sdata=%2Fq01Kgdo28ZEr%2BnR9Rh8uwXZz4TGt%2FdV60cx7XW9ixs%3D&reserved=0 > > <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faws.amazon.com%2Fec2%2Fpricing%2Fon-demand%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C9f9fa6f357c74ddd43fb08d7df051cfd%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223085366319686&sdata=%2Fq01Kgdo28ZEr%2BnR9Rh8uwXZz4TGt%2FdV60cx7XW9ixs%3D&reserved=0> > >> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:45 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: >> >> I'm not very experienced with spinning up servers. The CI server we are >> using is effectively free, based on a generous donation from Microsoft of >> MSDN accounts to ASF committers. So I leave it up 24/7, and share the RDP >> access on private@. I think any other ASF committer could do the same. >> IIRC, if that server actually is stopped, I have to use my personal >> (unshared) MSDN credentials to start it again. AIUI, if I actually paid >> for the server, it would cost me to leave it running even if it didn't run >> jobs between releases. >> >> Is that what you are basically saying? I think it might be best if another >> committer got a CI server going via the MS donation and could leave it up >> 24/7. >> >> -Alex >> >> On 4/12/20, 9:28 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I’m willing to do this. >> >> Considering that the release will be run infrequently, it should be doable >> to have a relatively powerful server that could be spun up on demand. This >> is something I have setup for my own releases. >> >> The only complication would be that each RM would need valid credentials >> to spin up the server. >> >> Harbs >> >>> On Apr 12, 2020, at 7:10 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: >>> >>> A better solution, IMO, is for someone else to offer up a CI server only >>> for release jobs. >> >> >> > > >
