RE: [Cruisecontrol-devel] Parallel Builds

[Jeffrey F. <JFr...@al...>]

 
It does, but if you don't have a multi-cpu machine there is no advantage to
trying to run them simultaneously.  In fact there is the significant
disadvantage of task switching and 4 fold increase in memory use.
 
There are a couple other factors to consider also:

*	how long does your build take if there are no changes detected?
*	are all projects equally active wrt frequency of check-ins?
*	do all projects have the same interval between builds?

The answer to these questions will have a big impact the multiproject
configuration actually has on your system.  Obviously if you've got two
projects but one of them only happens once a day it won't have a lot of
impact on the build that happens on demand throughout the day.
 
Jtf

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Pearse [mailto:rp...@ne...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 1:56 PM
To: Jeffrey Fredrick; cru...@li...
Subject: RE: [Cruisecontrol-devel] Parallel Builds



Currently, my builds take about 15 minutes to complete even under heavy
server load. With the multiple project setup, I have to wait an hour for
each build instead of 15 minutes because it does each build individually
before moving onto the next. Does that make more sense?

 

Thanks!

 

Robert

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Fredrick [mailto:JFr...@al...] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 3:47 PM
To: Robert Pearse; cru...@li...
Subject: RE: [Cruisecontrol-devel] Parallel Builds

 

 

You have a 4 cpu machine and you want 4 projects building simultaneously?
Or a single cpu machine that you want servicing four projects?

 

The later is in as the current multiple project support.  No work yet --
that I'm aware of -- on the former.

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Pearse [mailto:rp...@ne...]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 1:37 PM
To: cru...@li...
Subject: [Cruisecontrol-devel] Parallel Builds

How's the parallel build stuff coming? Just wanted to check to see if I need
4 installations for cruisecontrol or if I can hold off until it becomes a
feature. ;-)
 
Thanks!
 
Robert
 
On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 05:41, Jeffrey Fredrick wrote:
 >  
 > My thought is that the current serial behaivor would be the default. 
 > Getting parallel execution is something you'd need to explicitly
 > configure.
 
 Gotta agree with this. If we get multi-threaded behaviour in, the number
 of threads will be configurable, and should default to 1 (resulting in
 serial behaviour).
 
 Robert.
 
 -- 
                "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
   Robert Watkins                          email: robertdw@bi...