[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Staging branch [substitute availability]
From: |
Mathieu Othacehe |
Subject: |
Re: Staging branch [substitute availability] |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Jan 2021 09:39:41 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hello Leo,
> ------
> master branch
> aarch64: 66%
> x86_64: 93%
> i686: 85%
> armhf: 51%
>
> staging branch
> aarch64: 44%
> x86_64: 80%
> i686: 60%
> armhf: 30%
> ------
Thanks for the figures. I can comment on some stuff. Until recently it
was hard to monitor the build farm status because there were a lot of
contention at the main guix-daemon level.
Since the introduction of the "wip-offload" branch on Cuirass, the
situation has much improved. The workers are constantly building. For
now we are building three specifications:
* guix-modular-master
* guix-master
* staging
for x86_64, i686 and aarch64. If you look at the "Pending builds" chart
here[1], you will see that the CI is barely catching up. That's because
the "aarch64" emulated builds are incredibly slow, and monopolizing all
the build resources.
I deliberately chose to put armhf aside until I have a clearer view of
the situation.
Now, how to move on?
First, I still need to connect the four overdrives machine to the new
Cuirass remote building mechanism, and I would need some help for that
(asked on guix-sysadmins). But, I'm not sure it will much improve the
situation.
Longer term, we need to figure out a better solution. It's now
obvious that we do not have the computation power to build all our
branches for 5 different architectures, relying heavily on emulation for
armhf and aarch64. Anyone knows how Nix deals with that?
I guess that other major distributions provide only cross-compiled
packages for those architectures, but I don't think it's an option for
us, Ludo?
Thanks,
Mathieu
[1]: https://ci.guix.gnu.org/metrics
- Re: Staging branch [substitute availability armhf-linux], (continued)
- Re: Staging branch [substitute availability armhf-linux], Vincent Legoll, 2021/01/17
- Re: Staging branch [substitute availability armhf-linux], Mathieu Othacehe, 2021/01/17
- Re: Staging branch [substitute availability armhf-linux], Vincent Legoll, 2021/01/17
- Re: Staging branch [substitute availability armhf-linux], Caliph Nomble, 2021/01/19
- Re: Staging branch [substitute availability armhf-linux], Caliph Nomble, 2021/01/19
Re: Staging branch [substitute availability aarch64-linux], Leo Famulari, 2021/01/13
Re: Staging branch [substitute availability],
Mathieu Othacehe <=
Re: Staging branch [substitute availability], Ludovic Courtès, 2021/01/14
Re: Staging branch [substitute availability], Christopher Baines, 2021/01/15
Re: Staging branch [substitute availability], Leo Famulari, 2021/01/22