Re: Use of Lucene Zones

[Kristian Waagan <kr...@apache.org>]

Den 23.02.2010 18:50, skrev Grant Ingersoll:
> I'm a bit confused why Derby is using the Lucene Zone to begin with.  Doesn't Derby have it's own Zone?  I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but it would be nice if the Lucene PMC was asked before our resources are utilized.  I'm sure it was just assumed b/c the Lucene Zone shows up in Hudson, but my understanding from earlier discussions was that it was done out of convenience for Lucene (b/c that's where Hudson was first installed anyway) and that other Zones would be setup if projects wanted to provide their own resources to Hudson and that other build machines were provisioned to support the majority of projects
>
> Anyone else have any insight?

Hi Grant,

Not really, but I have moved the Derby jobs off the Lucene zone (see 
comment on INFRA-2502). I got into the Hudson-game a bit late, so I must 
have missed the discussions you refer to (and I haven't read the archives).

A while back I asked on the builds-list (see "Hudson Derby jobs", 
2009-11-24) if the zones machine could handle another zone running 
Hudson jobs, but I don't think I got any feedback. Derby isn't using its 
zone for anything, so I can ask the PMC again if we can donate the zone 
to Hudson. Before doing that I'd like to get a +1 from infra regarding 
the hardware utilization situation.

Sorry for doing something I wasn't supposed to do, hope it didn't cause 
too much trouble.


Regards,
-- 
Kristian

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2502

>
> -Grant
>
> On Feb 19, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Kristian Waagan wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't know if this error requires action to be taken by an administrator, but the last Derby-trunk build failed with the following stack trace:
>>
>> [Kristian Waagan] DERBY-4400: Document the process of producing Maven 2 artifacts for Derby.
>>
>> Minor formatting changes.
>> Fixed some typos.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Failed to access build log
>>
>> hudson.util.IOException2: remote file operation failed: /export/home/hudson/hudson-slave/workspace/Derby-trunk athudson.remoting.Channel@84bdd1:lucene.zones.apache.org  (Solaris 10)
>> 	at hudson.FilePath.act(FilePath.java:690)
>> 	at hudson.FilePath.act(FilePath.java:676)
>> 	at hudson.FilePath.toURI(FilePath.java:731)
>> 	at hudson.tasks.MailSender.createFailureMail(MailSender.java:256)
>> 	at hudson.tasks.MailSender.getMail(MailSender.java:133)
>> 	at hudson.tasks.MailSender.execute(MailSender.java:81)
>> 	at hudson.tasks.Mailer.perform(Mailer.java:99)
>> 	at hudson.tasks.BuildStepMonitor$1.perform(BuildStepMonitor.java:19)
>> 	at hudson.model.AbstractBuild$AbstractRunner.perform(AbstractBuild.java:582)
>> 	at hudson.model.AbstractBuild$AbstractRunner.performAllBuildStep(AbstractBuild.java:563)
>> 	at hudson.model.AbstractBuild$AbstractRunner.performAllBuildStep(AbstractBuild.java:550)
>> 	at hudson.model.Build$RunnerImpl.post2(Build.java:152)
>> 	at hudson.model.AbstractBuild$AbstractRunner.post(AbstractBuild.java:528)
>> 	at hudson.model.Run.run(Run.java:1221)
>> 	at hudson.model.FreeStyleBuild.run(FreeStyleBuild.java:46)
>> 	at hudson.model.ResourceController.execute(ResourceController.java:88)
>> 	at hudson.model.Executor.run(Executor.java:122)
>> Caused by: java.io.IOException: Remote call on lucene.zones.apache.org (Solaris 10) failed
>> 	at hudson.remoting.Channel.call(Channel.java:560)
>> 	at hudson.FilePath.act(FilePath.java:683)
>> 	... 16 more
>> Caused by: java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: GC overhead limit exceeded
>>
>>
>> Am I correct in assuming this is the Hudson slave process, and not the process building the code? (I further assume these are two separate processes)
>> The changes for this build were only text changes to a README...
>>
>> I expect another build to be triggered later today, so we'll see if the problem goes away or not.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Kristian
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: Use of Lucene Zones

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

On Feb 23, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Kristian Waagan wrote:

> Den 23.02.2010 18:50, skrev Grant Ingersoll:
>> I'm a bit confused why Derby is using the Lucene Zone to begin with.  Doesn't Derby have it's own Zone?  I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but it would be nice if the Lucene PMC was asked before our resources are utilized.  I'm sure it was just assumed b/c the Lucene Zone shows up in Hudson, but my understanding from earlier discussions was that it was done out of convenience for Lucene (b/c that's where Hudson was first installed anyway) and that other Zones would be setup if projects wanted to provide their own resources to Hudson and that other build machines were provisioned to support the majority of projects
>> 
>> Anyone else have any insight?
> 
> Hi Grant,
> 
> Not really, but I have moved the Derby jobs off the Lucene zone (see comment on INFRA-2502). I got into the Hudson-game a bit late, so I must have missed the discussions you refer to (and I haven't read the archives).
> 
> A while back I asked on the builds-list (see "Hudson Derby jobs", 2009-11-24) if the zones machine could handle another zone running Hudson jobs, but I don't think I got any feedback. Derby isn't using its zone for anything, so I can ask the PMC again if we can donate the zone to Hudson. Before doing that I'd like to get a +1 from infra regarding the hardware utilization situation.
> 
> Sorry for doing something I wasn't supposed to do, hope it didn't cause too much trouble.

No, definitely not a big deal.  Bringing it up more for your sanity than anything else, as the Lucene PMC, of course, reserves the right to change our Zone (not that we have) so that something you relied on may not be there in the future.

-Grant