4 ms·
I'm glad I'm not the only person that thought this, because I'm a HPC batch admin and that sort of machine packing is just what I do. I'm glad they found a sol
by caw 13y ago
I'm glad I'm not the only person that thought this, because I'm a HPC batch admin and that sort of machine packing is just what I do.
I'm glad they found a solution which seems to work out really well for their use case. Changing the algorithm to use the machine for an hour would imply that some tests may wait to be run, and that could be a bad thing for TestingBot (I'm not sure what their SLA is).
Going to their own "cloud" though will require them to either overbuy capacity or eventually make a push to increase utilization, so they may end up making that algo anyhow.
- hhw 13y agoThe reality is that once you reach a reasonable level of scale (multiple physical machines), the cost savings from going to your own cloud will easily allow you to afford that extra capacity and then some.
- caw 13y agoI disagree that it's the only reality. Definitely there is a scale where paying a sysadmin makes more sense than paying a provider for their sysadmin skills. There is another situation, which I would argue is the "enterprise" situation, where you will want to pay your programmers to make the changes because they're fixed overhead rather than capital expenditures. This scenario comes because of an internal push to save money (adding significant capacity costs too much), or because adding any sort of capacity increases operational complexity more than it increases code complexity. It's a much larger scale than where TestingBot is at, but a problem they probably hope to encounter one day.