[Pulp-dev] Travis pricing

Daniel Alley dalley at redhat.com
Mon Nov 9 16:17:37 UTC 2020

It depends on how much the 80/20 rule applies.  If we had a breakdown of
which jobs are using how many minutes, I bet we could get that number way
down just by cleaning up a couple of jobs.

None of these platforms support nested virt (actually Travis doesn't
officially support it either, it just happens to work), so those jobs will
either need to stay behind on Travis, move to something like CentOS CI, or
else we need to bite the bullet and add some of our own hardware to the CI
pool (which is quite easy apparently with both Github and Gitlab).

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:39 AM Brian Bouterse <bmbouter at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:27 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>> I looked a little bit more into Gitlab CI this morning. If my
>> understanding is correct, their cap is 50,000 minutes. Right now, we're
>> using about 44,000 minutes in Travis[0]. Some of our jobs (eg
>> pulp_installer, pulp-cli, etc) are on GHA already so in theory if we moved
>> everything over to Gitlab CI, we could potentially hit their cap?
> This is my main concern. If we're going to spend the effort to switch, we
> need to not end up in the same situation.
>> [0] https://travis-ci.com/github/pulp?tab=insights
>> David
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 8:18 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> We looked at Fedora's Zuul instance before and decided against using it
>>> for two reasons: (A) it'd be a lot of work/maintaince (eg we'd have to
>>> write our own zuul jobs, bring our own compute resource, etc), and (B) we
>>> were worried about the support since it's not a paid (or freemium) option.
>>> That said, it might be worth considering again if nothing else for
>>> testing on specific environments such as selinux which is difficult to do
>>> on hosted CI providers.
>>> David
>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:51 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:35 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Travis recently announced changes to their plan pricing that will
>>>> impact open-source projects such as Pulp[0]. It's likely that we'll exhaust
>>>> the monthly budget that Travis is going to give OSS projects and we're not
>>>> sure how generous Travis will be giving out extra build minutes.
>>>> >
>>>> > Given our concern, members of the CI team met today to discuss our
>>>> options. We have some notes[1] from our meeting about some of the options
>>>> that stood out to us. We'd like to have a plan in place when the new
>>>> pricing gets rolled out to our organization.
>>>> >
>>>> > Any feedback is welcome.
>>>> >
>>>> > [0] https://blog.travis-ci.com/2020-11-02-travis-ci-new-billing
>>>> > [1] https://hackmd.io/n6kStnNiTPGekAWGdNvbhA
>>>> Could we use the Fedora CI Zuul instance[2]? There's already a ton of
>>>> other projects using one of the Zuul instances on
>>>> softwarefactory-project.io, and leveraging the Fedora CI
>>>> infrastructure could also help future efforts in doing auto-release to
>>>> Fedora for Pulp releases, too.
>>>> [2]: https://fedora.softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/projects
>>>> --
>>>> 真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
>>>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20201109/782efff2/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list