On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 03:38, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > b) we probably need to take a large step back here. > > Look at this from a sponsor POV, why would I give X.org/fd.o > sponsorship money that they are just giving straight to google to pay > for hosting credits? Google are profiting in some minor way from these > hosting credits being bought by us, and I assume we aren't getting any > sort of discounts here. Having google sponsor the credits costs google > substantially less than having any other company give us money to do > it. The last I looked, Google GCP / Amazon AWS / Azure were all pretty comparable in terms of what you get and what you pay for them. Obviously providers like Packet and Digital Ocean who offer bare-metal services are cheaper, but then you need to find someone who is going to properly administer the various machines, install decent monitoring, make sure that more storage is provisioned when we need more storage (which is basically all the time), make sure that the hardware is maintained in decent shape (pretty sure one of the fd.o machines has had a drive in imminent-failure state for the last few months), etc. Given the size of our service, that's a much better plan (IMO) than relying on someone who a) isn't an admin by trade, b) has a million other things to do, and c) hasn't wanted to do it for the past several years. But as long as that's the resources we have, then we're paying the cloud tradeoff, where we pay more money in exchange for fewer problems. > If our current CI architecture is going to burn this amount of money a > year and we hadn't worked this out in advance of deploying it then I > suggest the system should be taken offline until we work out what a > sustainable system would look like within the budget we have, whether > that be never transferring containers and build artifacts from the > google network, just having local runner/build combos etc. Yes, we could federate everything back out so everyone runs their own builds and executes those. Tinderbox did something really similar to that IIRC; not sure if Buildbot does as well. Probably rules out pre-merge testing, mind. The reason we hadn't worked everything out in advance of deploying is because Mesa has had 3993 MRs in the not long over a year since moving, and a similar number in GStreamer, just taking the two biggest users. At the start it was 'maybe let's use MRs if you want to but make sure everything still goes through the list', and now it's something different. Similarly the CI architecture hasn't been 'designed', so much as that people want to run dEQP and Piglit on their hardware pre-merge in an open fashion that's actually accessible to people, and have just done it. Again, if you want everything to be centrally designed/approved/monitored/controlled, that's a fine enough idea, and I'd be happy to support whoever it was who was doing that for all of fd.o. Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
