On Wed, 13 May 2015 09:31:48 -0400 (EDT) Martin Krizek mkrizek@redhat.com wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Flink" tflink@redhat.com To: qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2015 8:05:04 PM Subject: To RHEL or Not to RHEL?
...snip...
While virt-in-virt is possible, I'd prefer to avoid the extra complexity and performance penalty and figure that running on bare metal makes more sense. If we disable local task execution, there should be little risk of one task disrupting other stuff on that virthost that can't be easily reverted.
Does it make sense not to disable local execution on one or more buildslave? I wonder if some tasks could benefit from not running in vm. Or it might be waste of resources to run tasks like rpmlint on a disposable client?
Yeah, that had occurred to me but hadn't gotten much farther with it than that.
It's something that we should probably look into. I suspect that you're right that it'd be more efficient to run some if not all of our regular tasks on non-dispoable clients. It makes triggering a bit more complicated but I don't think it would be too terrible to have a new "non-disposable" builder and trigger certain tasks on that instead of the regular builder.
Another option would be to maintain some of the vm buildslaves that we're currently using instead of running tasks on bare metal. I've filed a task for investigating this once we have a minimal system working:
https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/T480
Thanks,
Tim