Fair enough. I expect builds to be somewhere between 10 and 20 times faster on a powerful machine.
Yeah. It’s probably going to be a bit of work changing the server, but probably worth it in the long run. I think I’ll try this when I do the next release unless Yishay wants to work with me on this for this release — but I’m not going to be able to help until after Passover (i.e. next week). Thanks, Harbs > On Apr 12, 2020, at 9:22 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > > 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 > <mailto: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><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.
