[Buildbot-devel] Forcing on a given buildslave

[Pierre Tardy]

Indeed, we are checking for slave locks inside our nextSlave function.
Probably it make sense to put that check in the core process.

Pierre


On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Dustin J. Mitchell <dustin at v.igoro.us>wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Jared Grubb <jared.grubb at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think it might be possible to swap whether the buildrequest or the
> slave
> > gets chosen first.
> >
> > I've been looking at that chunk of code lately to solve another issue in
> > that area. I have 3 buildslaves, and use slave-locks to make sure only
> one
> > build happens per slave. The slave-assignment code doesnt check for locks
> > before randomly picking a slave ... so I'll have cases where I have two
> > slaves idle, and one or more builds assinged to the busy slave, all
> waiting
> > on locks.
>
> This code (the build request distributor) was recently rewritten.  It
> has a pretty complicated job -- coordinating the availability of slave
> builders and build requests, handling build request priorities,
> nextSlave, nextBuild, and so on.  There are a few big things lacking:
> the lock problem you describe above, and also the inability to
> prioritize builds on a particular slave across multiple builders (for
> slaves with limited concurrency).
>
> I'd love to see this improved!
>
> Dustin
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://buildbot.net/pipermail/devel/attachments/20120903/6f5c8b8e/attachment.html>