On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 08:48, Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 at 18:18, Daniel Stone <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. > > Admin for gitlab and CI is a full time role anyways. The system is > definitely not self sustaining without time being put in by you and > anholt still. If we have $75k to burn on credits, and it was diverted > to just pay an admin to admin the real hw + gitlab/CI would that not > be a better use of the money? I didn't know if we can afford $75k for > an admin, but suddenly we can afford it for gitlab credits? s/gitlab credits/GCP credits/ I took a quick look at HPE, which we previously used for bare metal, and it looks like we'd be spending $25-50k (depending on how much storage you want to provision, how much room you want to leave to provision more storage later, how much you care about backups) to run a similar level of service so that'd put a bit of a dint in your year-one budget. The bare-metal hosting providers also add up to more expensive than you might think, again especially if you want either redundancy or just backups. > > 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. > > Why? does gitlab not support the model? having builds done in parallel > on runners closer to the test runners seems like it should be a thing. > I guess artifact transfer would cost less then as a result. It does support the model but if every single build executor is also compiling Mesa from scratch locally, how long do you think that's going to take? > > 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. > > I don't think we have any choice but to have someone centrally > controlling it, You can't have a system in place that lets CI users > burn largs sums of money without authorisation, and that is what we > have now. OK, not sure who it is who's going to be approving every update to every .gitlab-ci.yml in the repository, or maybe we just have zero shared runners and anyone who wants to do builds can BYO. _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
