Allocate software resources
Tue, Aug 20
Dec 12 2018
Dec 9 2018
I'm having some trouble getting this new behaviour (which IIUC basically means that multiple hosts in a Drydock pool should be load-balanced across). In "active resources" I see three Drydock hosts, which all belong to the same Almanac service. In "active leases", however, I see only a single host lease and many working copy leases.
Nov 26 2018
Nov 10 2018
Nov 1 2018
Oct 30 2018
Fantastic, thanks very much @epriestley! I had indeed intended to take care of this myself was on other work this and last week and planned to come back to this. It also would have taken me much longer to realize that drydock.lease.search wasn't yet upstream and how to proceed from there, so I'm glad to see you were able to handle this so easily!
Oct 26 2018
Oct 25 2018
D19762 adds a "supplemental allocation" behavior, which basically lets blueprints say "I want to grow the pool instead of allowing this otherwise valid lease acquisition".
After that, both hosts will have resources and jobs will allocate randomly, which should be good enough.
I believe you can work around this today by disabling the binding to host "A" in Almanac, running one job (which will be forced to allocate on host "B"), then re-enabling the binding. After that, both hosts will have resources and jobs will allocate randomly, which should be good enough. This is exceptionally cumbersome and ridiculous, of course (and it's possible that it doesn't even work).
A specific subcase here is when the binding to an Almanac host has been disabled. We should possibly test this during Interface construction, treat it as a failure, then recover from it.
I believe D16594 should implement this, one way or another, unless I'm misunderstanding the request.
Complicating this: there is no drydock.lease.search call upstream. So you're probably running some variation of D16594? But that already has ownerPHIDs.
Oct 24 2018
I'm happy to make these changes myself, or you mentioned wanting to contribute a patch?
Oct 23 2018
Oct 16 2018
Oct 12 2018
Oct 10 2018
Oct 1 2018
Sep 21 2018
Sep 19 2018
Sep 14 2018
Sep 13 2018
Sep 7 2018
Aug 28 2018
The unit test results also don't currently show on individual builds, which is a little whack?
See T13189#240682 for some planning on the Unit Test result table.
Aug 27 2018
Aug 3 2018
Jun 20 2018
Back when this was originally reported, I'm pretty sure git lfs clone didn't exist (or at least I wasn't aware of it's existence). The appropriate fix now is probably different to the fix suggested in the original report.
We have a similar issue - however I think the "fix" is probably worse then the workaround.