[yocto] nightly-release takes more than 24 hours to build.

[Tian, Kevin]

>From: Richard Purdie
>Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 7:03 PM
>
>On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 02:38 -0700, Scott Garman wrote:
>> Leading up to our 0.9 release, our autobuilder has been building an
>> increasing number of targets for our nightly-release buildset. We've now
>> reached the point that the nightly build takes more than 24 hours to run
>> (> 26 hours, in fact) - which is clearly a problem on a build that we'd
>> like to generate on a daily basis.
>>
>> The following is a list of everything which is built within nightly-release:
>>
>> The following targets are built for qemux86, qemux86-64, qemuarm,
>> qemumips, and qemuppc:
>>
>> * poky-image-minimal
>> * poky-image-sato
>> * poky-image-lsb
>> * poky-image-sdk
>> * meta-toolchain-sdk (SDKMACHINE=i586 and also x86_64)
>>
>> For emenlow and atom-pc, we build:
>>
>> * poky-image-minimal-live
>> * poky-image-sato-live
>> * poky-image-sdk-live
>> * meta-toolchain-sdk (SDKMACHINE=i586 and also x86_64)
>>
>> Finally, we also build the Eclipse plugin, and copy the shared state
>> prebuilds and RPM output at the end of the build.
>>
>> I was going to post build times for some of these targets for reference,
>> but it would be misleading as we build the targets in succession (e.g,
>> we start with poky-image-sdk which takes the bulk of the time, and then
>> the other targets can largely rely on the shared state builds).
>>
>> Ideally I think our nightly build should take much less than 24 hours to
>> build. The question is what we can move out of the nightly build and do
>> on perhaps a weekly basis instead?
>>
>> Our buildserver hardware is a dual quad-core Xeon server with 12 GB of
>> RAM. Throwing hardware at the problem is another solution, but not an
>> inexpensive one (we'd be looking at a 4-socket machine filled with
>> quad-cores and 32 GB of RAM).
>
>There doesn't just have to be one build machine, we are going to end up
>needing multiple machines and we can split the load between them quite
>easily. I think there is going to be a second machine needed alongside
>the existing one regardless of what other optimisations we make.
>
>The changes in development at the moment will have a mixed effect on the
>autobuilder's load. On the plus side we know there are performance
>regressions with 0.9 which we're about to investigate. I can think of
>one change I have in mind which on its own should get the builds back
>under the 24 hour time.

In case you didn't note Qing's investigation last week, attach his mail for
your reference.

Thanks
Kevin

>
>On the down side there are going to be changes that need increased
>horsepower from the build machines such as the runtime testing we're
>close to enabling or enabling builds of world.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Richard
>
>_______________________________________________
>yocto mailing list
>yocto at yoctoproject.org
>https://lists.pokylinux.org/listinfo/yocto
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "He, Qing" <qing.he at intel.com>
Subject: [yocto] Some data collection and analysis on poky performance
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:23:08 +0800
Size: 5537
URL: <http://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/yocto/attachments/20101102/af0cc26c/attachment.mht>