[Scummvm-devel] About announcing backend changes & build machine

Pawel Kolodziejski aquadran at xtr.net.pl
Mon Jan 7 16:17:58 CET 2008

> Hello All,
> Max Horn wrote:
>> Indeed, we are guaranteed 512 MB, and temporarily can get up to 1024 to
>> "handle load peaks". I was not sure whether that is enough; Eugene and
>> me
>> thought it should be OK in general.
> One of my concerns is the available processing power, including both CPU
> and RAM resources. We all know that building scummvm is an exercise for
> both these things, considering that the machine will build an array of
> ports besides the basic win32/linux/mac executables (Note: on my old
> athlon xp 1800+ + 1GB ram it took 45mins for a full wince release build,
> on the new Quad Intel 3.33 2 GB, 3.5 mins real with all the cores
> running in parallel). Granted that we can schedule less important ports
> to build less frequently.

hmm, i just checked, myself on my home vserver with 1.8ghz amd cpu with
one core and 1gb ram it build arm linux from svn about 6 minutes with all
engines enabled minus scalers. So i wonder why it takes 3.5 min on four
cores. it seems compilation scummvm doesn't scale very vell. i'll test it
also later on diffrent vserver with four cpu cores.

regarding ram, i think it should be enough, we will not compile all daily
builds at once, but serialy, and will propably at time when we most of us
sleep at that moment. so on demand compilation should not be a problem in
general. i'll check later how much compiler takes memory.

> Anyway, seeing that they offer "VPS" (
> http://www.hosteurope.de/produkte/VPS-Linux ) and "servers" (
> http://www.hosteurope.de/produkte/Server-XL-XXL ) I am wondering if the
> "VPS" solution can take the beating it will take when we use it as a
> build server. Also granted that since it's got a processor, ram and disk
> we can use it for building, but will it really cope?
> If we can move up to more expensive solutions in the "VPS" range
> effortlessly (ideally with no intervention from us), we can start with
> the lower end but I anticipate that we will have to change sometime. 50
> Euros for top of the line is not bad at all, if we come to it.
> About Ubuntu: I would go with debian etch as well: It's got a great
> record on the server I use it. But since they offer the nice admin web
> front end with ubuntu it seems like a good all around choice for the
> whole team. I am indifferent to these frontends; I assume that they must
> be choking when one fiddles with config files directly. Also, choosing
> the distro which they can support mostly themselves (and relieve us of
> such duties) is a good way to go here (Note: hosteurope has done a
> remarkable job in keeping our stuff running so far, so they're a good
> choice).
> About security: It seems like a workaround for me to have the builds
> done there then upload them somewhere else for distribution (note also
> that for "VPS" we also get a lot of traffic allocated to the box). If
> the server is always up to date with the more stable kernel and the
> users have all *strong* passwords, it is difficult to get malicious
> access into the machine. And if we get data backup for free it is really
> no problem if someone knocks the server out. Further, if we can keep a
> self contained scummvm build system inside the scummvm svn, so that
> minimal tweaking has to be done on a fresh machine to get the ball
> rolling, installing from scratch need not be a pain.
> And I vote for lechuck.scummvm.org, the pirate with snapshot build
> responsibilities :-)
> Best Regards,
> Kostas
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Scummvm-devel mailing list
> Scummvm-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scummvm-devel

More information about the Scummvm-devel mailing list