On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 02:30:43PM +0100, Sven-Hendrik Haase via arch-devops <arch-devops@lists.archlinux.org> wrote:
In that case, I put forth the next best contender, the Hetzner AX160-NVMe at 164€/month base price.
That's certainly a much more realistic option, but I'm still not sure if we really need it. If I look at the cpu graph of soyuz for the last month, I see a lot of idle time. There's a base load from quassel/matrix which should really be moved elsewhere (a hetzner cloud VM maybe?) and the occasional peak, but I don't really see us needing a bigger machine just yet. I see the build server more as a support machine in case a packager doesn't have a suitable build machine themselves or if their network connection is too slow to upload the packages. For that purpose I'd say the load that soyuz has is perfectly fine and no upgrade is required. That said, I know that you want a faster machine for your big packages. Since I don't have any packages like that personally, I don't have a strong opinion here. Also I fear that if we have a really beefy machine, it might attract more attention from packagers with slower machines and therefore it might be more loaded than what we have now. I mean, who in their right mind wouldn't want to build on the fancy, new, super-fast build server where the same build takes only 1/4 of the time. I'd rather have a second machine similar to soyuz so that we can allow more people to build at the same time without stepping on each other's toes. Then again, we do have sgp.pkgbuild.com and we could probably convert 1-3 more machines if needed. I agree that these machines are "slow", but, to some degree, I see that as a good thing. I hope this explanation makes sense. If not feel free to tell me. Florian