New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
release.nix: remove aarch64 as blocker, fixes #104550 #104679
Conversation
Note I think there is a possibility to increase the priority of a derivation ( |
I think I can commit some time to this today, please consider holding this PR for a few hours. |
For Personally I think Given that aarch64 is lagging that much behind, perhaps users would appreciate separate -aarch64 channels, but we don't have any of those yet... and of course, getting more aarch64 builders would be a nicer solution. |
We offer the channel, so it should be reliable.
We do have Nix on non-NixOS users, aside from Darwin. Or users on NixOS that want to run their system on stable and use "the latest" for other things. |
I wouldn't recommend Still, I do agree that we should improve the situation. |
I wonder if we can close this now? |
Is it possible to donate some money to get AArch64 instances on AWS or something? |
So far I'm only aware of donations that don't specify the platform. I don't know how difficult it would be to arrange something like that. |
Opening again because its lagging. This time we haven't been able to get the bootstrap tools to build since November 21st. That's over 10 days now. |
The aarch64 build capacity has dropped significantly, making it impossible to keep up with the x86_64 linux and darwin builders. This blocks the advancing of nixpkgs-unstable. At the time of writing, even though Hydra has hardly been occupied on other branches, the aarch64 part of nixpkgs:trunk is hardly progressing; only 3300 jobs have finished and still 28000 are queued.
Are we doing a lot more staging builds these days? If memory serves well I didn't see as many during previous relases/years. Maybe just being a bit more conservative there would help? It does not solve the issue but also our capacity doesn't just continue to grow with demand. @grahamc did you and @lheckemann figure out (and fix?) what was wrong with a few builders? |
I aim to have a weekly staging iteration. I think the average time of a cycle has dropped by several days. Even so, we have plenty of x86_64-linux building capacity, and the darwin builders also keep up, to a degree that is. The capacity of aarch64 has simply dropped spectacularly. Also to consider is that, in the month leading to a release and after a release the staging branch of the stable branch is typically more occupied. However, it is also my impression that we have now more active people backporting mass-rebuilding changes. |
Yes, the builders should be working again, running an older kernel. Is the capacity still lower than before? |
Thanks to @lheckemann we have about 20 working builders now (50/50 split big-parallel (22 cores, 2 jobs) and not (22 jobs, 2 cores)) after getting the worker image booting on some slightly weird hardware. |
Capacity is all good again, thanks! |
The aarch64 build capacity has dropped significantly, making it
impossible to keep up with the x86_64 linux and darwin builders. This
blocks the advancing of nixpkgs-unstable.
At the time of writing, even though Hydra has hardly been occupied on
other branches, the aarch64 part of nixpkgs:trunk is hardly progressing;
only 3300 jobs have finished and still 28000 are queued.
Closes #104550.
https://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixpkgs/trunk/unstable#tabs-constituents
Motivation for this change
Things done
sandbox
innix.conf
on non-NixOS linux)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
./result/bin/
)nix path-info -S
before and after)