CODEWITHSUNDEEP
.netcontinuous-integrationhudsonteamcity
big_tommy_7bb
big_tommy_7bb

Reputation: 1317

Light-weight Continuous Integration Server for .NET

I want to set up a CI server for a personal project I'm doing with some colleagues as a learning exercise.

I've a virtual server we can use for the CI server but its rather low on resources (CPU/RAM and HDD).

Which .NET CI solution has the smallest footprint (I'm thinking Hudson)? I've seen plenty of threads comparing them, but nothing really on the resource usage.

Upvotes: 3

Views: 1053

Answers (2)

Scott Weinstein
Scott Weinstein

Reputation: 19117

Both are small enough to use on a contrained VM. The biggest consumer of resources is the actual compile of your projects, and the build artifacts they create. These are independent of the CI server you're using.

Upvotes: 3

ZokiManas
ZokiManas

Reputation: 722

I will confirm your statement for using Hudson. It is very easy to configure and use, it will take no more than an hour to have it up and running. For more serious projects (again open source) i will go with CruiseControl.NET. One constraint of using Hudson as CI is the small number of plug-ins that are available for .NET code. But. the major ones are there. Go with it.

Upvotes: 4

Related Questions