The Azure portal says: Standard F2s_v2 (2 vcpus, 4 GiB memory)
I think I am reading changes to the build process in your suggestions. I do
not really want to spend more of my time on this process. But if you want to
do the work, that's fine with me.
-Alex
On 4/12/20, 10:57 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
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%7Cd686f90158d64b443af208d7df0ae705%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223110228240938&sdata=4h8pNDGgZpz66Lau44TAVMNDhgue8FplYnAapfJoEzM%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%7Cd686f90158d64b443af208d7df0ae705%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637223110228240938&sdata=4h8pNDGgZpz66Lau44TAVMNDhgue8FplYnAapfJoEzM%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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
