Hi everyone, Is there a quick and easy way to say "only this number of builds can occur at one time, and any others will have to wait until they''re done"? --Russell
There is if that number of builds is 1. In the site_config.rb file there should be a line about serializing builds that you can uncomment. Jeremy On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Russell Miller <duskglow at gmail.com> wrote:> Hi everyone, > > Is there a quick and easy way to say "only this number of builds can > occur at one time, and any others will have to wait until they''re > done"? > > --Russell > _______________________________________________ > Cruisecontrolrb-users mailing list > Cruisecontrolrb-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/cruisecontrolrb-users >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/cruisecontrolrb-users/attachments/20090225/53217e1a/attachment.html>
I''ve been meaning to look into this myself (to see how tricky it would be to implement). We''ve got 26 builds on our server, and the server really comes crashing to a halt once more than four or five of them are building at once. I don''t really want to serialize the builds to just one at a time, but that''s what I''ve done for now. -- Nick On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Russell Miller <duskglow at gmail.com> wrote:> Hi everyone, > > Is there a quick and easy way to say "only this number of builds can > occur at one time, and any others will have to wait until they''re > done"? > > --Russell > _______________________________________________ > Cruisecontrolrb-users mailing list > Cruisecontrolrb-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/cruisecontrolrb-users >
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:02 PM, nicholas a. evans <nick at ekenosen.net> wrote:> I''ve been meaning to look into this myself (to see how tricky it would > be to implement). ?We''ve got 26 builds on our server, and the server > really comes crashing to a halt once more than four or five of them > are building at once. ?I don''t really want to serialize the builds to > just one at a time, but that''s what I''ve done for now. >We have cruisecontrolrb set up to automatically build our puppet manifests. We have about 50 manifests, and it turns out that if you run too many sequentially the whole process falls on its knees for some reason. I''ve been trying to figure out why, but I''d like to be able to say "run 7 builds at a time" instead of having to rely on the insanely complex locking mechanism we use now (that doesn''t seem to scale very well). --Russell
> We have cruisecontrolrb set up to automatically build our puppet > manifests. ?We have ?about 50 manifests, and it turns out that if you > run too many sequentially the whole process falls on its knees for > some reason. ?I''ve been trying to figure out why, but I''d like to be > able to say "run 7 builds at a time" instead of having to rely on the > insanely complex locking mechanism we use now (that doesn''t seem to > scale very well). >That sould read "concurrently", not "sequentially". Sorry. --Russell
Just FYI, i was not able to get this to work for me. Instead I ended up serializing my builds. I have two projects that follow the same repository (different rake tasks). So my guess was that both builders launched at the same time. One moment there were 0, the next moment, 2. Bret On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Jeremy Lightsmith < jeremy.lightsmith at gmail.com> wrote:> There is if that number of builds is 1. In the site_config.rb file there > should be a line about serializing builds that you can uncomment. > > Jeremy > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Russell Miller <duskglow at gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> Is there a quick and easy way to say "only this number of builds can >> occur at one time, and any others will have to wait until they''re >> done"? >> >> --Russell >> _______________________________________________ >> Cruisecontrolrb-users mailing list >> Cruisecontrolrb-users at rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/cruisecontrolrb-users >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Cruisecontrolrb-users mailing list > Cruisecontrolrb-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/cruisecontrolrb-users > >-- Bret Pettichord GTalk: bpettichord at gmail.com CTO, WatirCraft LLC, http://www.watircraft.com Lead Developer, Watir, http://www.watir.com Blog (Essays), http://www.io.com/~wazmo/blog MiniBlog (Links), http://feeds.feedburner.com/bretshotlist Training, http://www.watircraft.com/watir-training -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/cruisecontrolrb-users/attachments/20090225/6a193b9c/attachment.html>
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Bret Pettichord <bret at pettichord.com> wrote:> Just FYI, i was not able to get this to work for me. Instead I ended up > serializing my builds. >I can''t even get serialization to work. It''s just ignoring that config option. Have I mentioned I really dislike ruby? :) --Russell
I don''t think i was clear. I have two builds. one is triggered when the other succeeds. I did it this way because i couldn''t the serialize config option to work. Not complaining, just describing. Bret On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Russell Miller <duskglow at gmail.com> wrote:> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Bret Pettichord <bret at pettichord.com> > wrote: > > Just FYI, i was not able to get this to work for me. Instead I ended up > > serializing my builds. > > > I can''t even get serialization to work. It''s just ignoring that config > option. > > Have I mentioned I really dislike ruby? :) > > --Russell > _______________________________________________ > Cruisecontrolrb-users mailing list > Cruisecontrolrb-users at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/cruisecontrolrb-users >-- Bret Pettichord GTalk: bpettichord at gmail.com CTO, WatirCraft LLC, http://www.watircraft.com Lead Developer, Watir, http://www.watir.com Blog (Essays), http://www.io.com/~wazmo/blog MiniBlog (Links), http://feeds.feedburner.com/bretshotlist Training, http://www.watircraft.com/watir-training -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/cruisecontrolrb-users/attachments/20090225/06879a02/attachment-0001.html>
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Bret Pettichord <bret at pettichord.com> wrote:> I don''t think i was clear. I have two builds. one is triggered when the > other succeeds. I did it this way because i couldn''t the serialize config > option to work. >I did get it to work, turns out the site_config.rb file to modify is in /root/.cruise instead. This really isn''t an acceptable solution for the long term, but it''ll at least let me go back and try to figure out why all of the builds were stomping on each other without everything being horribly broken. --Russell
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Russell Miller <duskglow at gmail.com> wrote:> I did get it to work, turns out the site_config.rb file to modify is > in /root/.cruise instead. ? This really isn''t an acceptable solution > for the long term, but it''ll at least let me go back and try to figure > out why all of the builds were stomping on each other without > everything being horribly broken.All user-specific files are supposed to live in ~/.cruise. This is by design, so you can update the cruise application code without risk of losing any data. It also makes it easy to backup or migrate all your user data if necessary. In what way is this unacceptable? Also, looks like you are running as root. This is almost never a good idea - create a non-root user and run everything as that user, using sudo as necessary. -- Chad
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Chad Woolley <thewoolleyman at gmail.com> wrote:> All user-specific files are supposed to live in ~/.cruise. ?This is by > design, so you can update the cruise application code without risk of > losing any data. ?It also makes it easy to backup or migrate all your > user data if necessary. > > In what way is this unacceptable? >It''s not, I''m trying to help the other guy who said it didn''t work, by saying how I got it to work.> Also, looks like you are running as root. ?This is almost never a good > idea - create a non-root user and run everything as that user, using > sudo as necessary. >Unfortunately, I inherited this, and that''s not something I''m ready to try changing at the moment. --Russell