[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
| [jakartaee-tck-dev] Tracking usage data for EE4J working group CI	cloud systems | 
  
  
    Hi,
    (I thought I had forwarded this to lists, but perhaps I didn't do
      it correctly. If you see this more than once, sorry.)
    
    Here's an update on the bug I filed "EE4J
            Working Group needs way to monitor Resource Pack Utilization".
      In the last comment, the Web Admins have supplied a couple of
      spreadsheets showing data sampling of vCPU counts and memory
      usage. I've plotted the CPU usage samples and here is an image for
      Jakarta EE TCK project:
    
    They provide limits and memory usage, but I don't think those are
      actually independent. The bug also lists similar graphs for
      Eclipse GlassFish and EclipseLink. Please note that the vCPU
      shapes can vary so memory totals seem to be much more generous for
      the TCK project.
    Here is a similar graph, for Eclipse GlassFish:
    
    We can discuss what these data are implying, but I was asked to
      validate the data in these reports so I'm soliciting your
      feedback.
    
    My goals were to assess the allocations and to understand if we
      were over or under allocated. Then, to use these data to decide if
      we needed to fund more, or fewer "Resource Packs" for CY 2021.
    Separately, we had asked for a different mechanism for allocating
      resource packs across the working group but I don't have any news
      on that aspect of this issue.
    So, this e-mail is to kick-off some discussion about this and see
      if these data will suffice for our monitoring and planning
      purposes.
    What do you think about the data-capture? I think the fundamental
      question is: can we manage this resource, hence the cost, based on
      these data?
    You are also welcome to review any of the commentary and ask
      questions directly via the issue.
    I'd be happy to expand the distribution on this, but thought I'd
      start with those who'd indicated interest and who had been
      following the issue(s).
    
    Cheers,
    
    -- Ed