Skip to content

Retention strategy#78

Closed
pjdarton wants to merge 2 commits intojenkinsci:masterfrom
pjdarton:retention_strategy
Closed

Retention strategy#78
pjdarton wants to merge 2 commits intojenkinsci:masterfrom
pjdarton:retention_strategy

Conversation

@pjdarton
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

The existing "keep until it's been idle for too long" strategy didn't appear to be working - VMs would get disposed of immediately after becoming idle.
This change replaces the implementation with one that follows the techniques used in the OpenStack plugin, as that one seems to work.
So, after this change, we now have a choice between a "use once" strategy (as before) or, now this works, we can keep VMs around until they've been unused for too long ("too long" is configurable). This allows us to get a better build throughput as we do not have to wait for VMs to boot up for every build, as VMs can remain available for reuse after each build and only get killed off if they remain surplus to requirements for too long.

pjdarton added 2 commits June 28, 2017 17:32
The last edit to VSphereCloudRetentionStrategy used CRLF EOLs.
This commit changes the end-of-line codes from CRLF to LF - no other changes made.
The existing "keep until it's been idle for too long" strategy didn't appear
to be working - VMs would get disposed of immediately after becoming idle.
This change replaces the implementation with one that follows the techniques
used in the OpenStack plugin, as that one seems to work.
So, after this change, we now have a choice between a "use once" strategy or,
now this works, we can keep VMs around until they've been unused for too long
(which is configurable).
This allows us to get a better build throughput as we do not have to wait for
VMs to boot up for every build, as VMs remain available for reuse after each
build and only get killed off if they remain surplus to requirements for too
long.
@pjdarton
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

pjdarton commented Aug 2, 2017

This just does what #82 does, only #82 does it better. I'll close this one and use #82 instead.

@pjdarton pjdarton closed this Aug 2, 2017
@pjdarton pjdarton deleted the retention_strategy branch September 5, 2017 14:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant