To RHEL or Not to RHEL?

[Tim Flink]

On Wed, 13 May 2015 09:31:48 -0400 (EDT)
Martin Krizek <mkrizek at redhat.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tim Flink" <tflink at redhat.com>
> > To: qa-devel at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/qa-devel/attachments/20150513/bce3616a/attachment.sig>