hi, anonym wrote (02 Sep 2015 09:11:43 GMT) : > I got a video that was 309 MiB large [...]
Assuming (very wild guess) that the size gain brought by the proposed changes from #10001 can be extrapolated, this could become 117 MiB. If that's mostly correct, then with an aggressive enough cleaning policy (e.g. delete those that are more than 7 days old), I *guess* that we can very well afford storing those. I guess that our existing artifacts cleanup script could easily be adjusted to support expiring videos as well (note that we may need different expiration policies for videos and for other test suite artifacts, that we may want to keep longer; not sure yet; needs to be refined). > It's interesting to note that this runtime is not different from what I > normally get when running this branch on the isotesters (I said "~350 > minutes" earlier in this thread), Excellent news: this means that the runtime increase concern is not valid on lizard -- one less blocker for archiving videos. bertagaz also confirmed that archiving them is not much more work for him, so we should be good. I think that's not a blocker for the first iteration, though: if videos are added between Oct. 15 and Jan. 15, I'm happy :) bertagaz, time to create tickets that sum this up, or do we need more discussion? > which makes me wonder if the main concern of #10001, that --capture > increases the runtime (even when enough CPU is available), is > actually valid. I'm gonna investigate that now... Well, it *is* valid at least on my system. However, it could depend on hardware, and/or on the version of the video codec libraries (I did my tests on sid, which is useful info because that gives us an idea of what software we'll run on our infra in ~2 years). Cheers! -- intrigeri _______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
