Re: [FFmpeg-devel] CI

[Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2025, 11:33 Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel, <
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:

> 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
>

In the end you're paying for hosting, 24/7 electricity and not having to
worry about it.

I agree with both viewpoints. For "mission critical" stuff like CI we
should host at a proper hosting company.

Kieran

>
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".