3 ms·

If you're interested in working on open source permanently consider applying at our open core company GitLab Inc. 80% of what we do is released as open source.

by sytse 10y ago

If you're interested in working on open source permanently consider applying at our open core company GitLab Inc. 80% of what we do is released as open source. Vacancies are at https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/ https://about.gitlab.com/jobs/ and we hire everywhere https://about.gitlab.com/team/ https://about.gitlab.com/team/

cocotino 10y ago
I hope you get more employees and/or funding, because 15 seconds for an "Already up-to-date." git pull is the norm with your service.
- sytse 10y ago
  You're right, GitLab.com ssh access is way too slow. See https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/59#note_13486751 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/59#note_... for my writeup. We'll prioritize this.
  - cocotino 10y ago
    Thank you very much, it's appreciated.
    - sytse 10y ago
      You're welcome, thanks for commenting back. Also, we added public monitoring to measure this http://monitor.gitlab.net/dashboard/db/gitlab-status?panelId=12&fullscreen http://monitor.gitlab.net/dashboard/db/gitlab-status?panelId... Relevant part from our initial look into this https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/59#note_13488035 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/59#note_... "My gut feeling with all this is that the NFS server is the main bottleneck. It is maxing out all the time in CPU time dedicated to IO (check graph) and our last finding is also pointing in the direction that the way the LVM is setup (using linear) is not efficient at all, and it is generating a lot of overhead by fragmenting the actual filesystem for reads (on rewrites) and by concentrating all the writes into one single drive at time. The first test I want to make is to create the new NFS server, and add monitoring on that one to rule out completely the fact that the NFS server is the main bottleneck, hopefully this should happen today."
abetusk 10y ago
Why is this getting downvoted? It's adding something to the discussion that's relevant. Part of the reason for looking at the comments is to find other links to other initiatives or companies that are helping fund FOSS development.
- cyphar 10y ago
  > Why is this getting downvoted? It's adding something to the discussion that's relevant. Probably because "open core" is a worrying business model for a free software company. It's better than it being proprietary, but there's a legitimate concern that GitLab will stunt development in the community edition to upsell people to the proprietary version. Much of the engineering talent is at GitLab, unlike most free software projects. I work at SUSE, and all of my contributions and patches are free software (in fact, I maintain runC as part of my job which is pretty awesome). This is a much less worrying model than open core IMO. Enterprise support doesn't have to be support of proprietary software.

by sytse 10y ago

cocotino 10y ago

I hope you get more employees and/or funding, because 15 seconds for an "Already up-to-date." git pull is the norm with your service.

sytse 10y ago
You're right, GitLab.com ssh access is way too slow. See https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/59#note_13486751 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/59#note_... for my writeup. We'll prioritize this.
- cocotino 10y ago
  Thank you very much, it's appreciated.
  - sytse 10y ago
    You're welcome, thanks for commenting back. Also, we added public monitoring to measure this http://monitor.gitlab.net/dashboard/db/gitlab-status?panelId=12&fullscreen http://monitor.gitlab.net/dashboard/db/gitlab-status?panelId... Relevant part from our initial look into this https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/59#note_13488035 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/infrastructure/issues/59#note_... "My gut feeling with all this is that the NFS server is the main bottleneck. It is maxing out all the time in CPU time dedicated to IO (check graph) and our last finding is also pointing in the direction that the way the LVM is setup (using linear) is not efficient at all, and it is generating a lot of overhead by fragmenting the actual filesystem for reads (on rewrites) and by concentrating all the writes into one single drive at time. The first test I want to make is to create the new NFS server, and add monitoring on that one to rule out completely the fact that the NFS server is the main bottleneck, hopefully this should happen today."

abetusk 10y ago

Why is this getting downvoted? It's adding something to the discussion that's relevant. Part of the reason for looking at the comments is to find other links to other initiatives or companies that are helping fund FOSS development.

cyphar 10y ago
> Why is this getting downvoted? It's adding something to the discussion that's relevant. Probably because "open core" is a worrying business model for a free software company. It's better than it being proprietary, but there's a legitimate concern that GitLab will stunt development in the community edition to upsell people to the proprietary version. Much of the engineering talent is at GitLab, unlike most free software projects. I work at SUSE, and all of my contributions and patches are free software (in fact, I maintain runC as part of my job which is pretty awesome). This is a much less worrying model than open core IMO. Enterprise support doesn't have to be support of proprietary software.