Hi

On Thu, Aug 21, 2025 at 12:31:46AM +0200, Timo Rothenpieler via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> On 8/20/2025 9:25 PM, Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 05:56:27PM +0200, Timo Rothenpieler via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> > > On 8/20/2025 1:26 AM, Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > > 
> > > > It seems the forgejo CI takes about
> > > > 13min to do fate on aarch64 and x86-64 and build on win64
> > > > 
> > > > Locally i run
> > > >       fate + install on x86-64
> > > >       build on x86-32, mingw64, arm32, mips, ppc, x86-64 + shared libs
> > > >       testprogs alltools examples build on x86-64, x86-32 and arm32
> > > >       in 2min 44sec
> > > > 
> > > > can we improve the speed vs amount of tests ratio ?
> > > > (its not a problem ATM, i did in fact not even notice as i never waited on it)
> > > > 
> > > > Iam just seeing the difference in time and i think there is potential for
> > > > optimization here
> > > > 
> > > > I dont think my box here is really special, just a
> > > > AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 16-Core + Samsung SSD 970 PRO
> > > 
> > > Well, the test runners are 4 cores and 8GB of RAM. So that'll be the primary
> > > difference in speed.
> > > I think they're performing pretty good for being just that.
> > > 
> > > We could of course throw money at the problem and turn them into 16 core
> > > machines. That would up the hosting cost of the runners from currently
> > > 3*7.5¤ a month to 3*30¤ a month. Just for the runners.
> > > 
> > > imo the current CI turnaround times are fine. 15-20 minutes per job is fine,
> > > as long as they can all run in parallel.
> > 
> > Option 1: 15-20 min CI turnaround,  270 ¤ per year
> > Option 2:  4-5? min CI turnaround, 1080 ¤ per year
> > 
> > we have over 150k $ it seems
> > 
> > Good use of capital can also lead to more donations
> > 
> > I think the main question is, "would we benefit from the faster trunaround"?
> > or not ?
> 
> You have to keep in mind, 4 Core 8GB is also the swarm of runners we get for
> free from Microsoft via GitHub.
> 
> So the choice is actually "Be able to process 20+ jobs in parallel that take
> 15-20 minutes each" vs. "Be able to process 3 or so at a time (roughly one
> PR/push) in 5 minutes".
> So realistically, unless we also pay for an actual swarm of runners
> ourselves(which would cost 10k or more a year while being idle 95% of the
> time) the total turnaround time including wait for a free runner is probably
> still better with more of the smaller runners than less of the big ones.
> 
> It'd also make it a lot more pressing to think about every single CI job we
> add, vs. having a bit of leeway due to the over-abundance of runners.

for 1-2k$ you can buy a box that runs fate once and build on 6 times in
under 3minutes.

if one is not enough buy 3, use the extra capcity for fuzzing or rent out
to other projects

I must be stupid, because to me this looks cheaper, its also one time expense
these boxes can be used for 10 years

also no need to be reliable expensive servers, if you have 3.

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

"I am not trying to be anyone's saviour, I'm trying to think about the
 future and not be sad" - Elon Musk