bug#48926: Cuirass is not building Mutt

bug#48926: Cuirass is not building Mutt

[Leo Famulari]

Recently I noticed that I'm not getting substitutes for Mutt.

Looking at the ci.guix.gnu.org web interface, it seems that we stopped
building Mutt about a month ago:

https://ci.guix.gnu.org/search?query=spec%3Amaster+mutt-2.0.7+system%3Ax86_64-linux

And `guix weather` confirms that we seem to have stopped building it:

------
$ guix describe          
Generation 174	Jun 08 2021 14:59:25	(current)
  guix 74c7055
    repository URL: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git
    commit: 74c70553394e32f7b6d5fa56da3bf3b18623c70f
$ guix weather mutt      
computing 1 package derivations for x86_64-linux...
looking for 1 store items on https://ci.guix.gnu.org...
https://ci.guix.gnu.org
  0.0% substitutes available (0 out of 1)
  unknown substitute sizes
  0.0 MiB on disk (uncompressed)

  0.0% (0 out of 1) of the missing items are queued
  at least 1,000 queued builds
      x86_64-linux: 906 (90.6%)
      aarch64-linux: 9 (.9%)
      i686-linux: 85 (8.5%)
  build rate: .00 builds per hour
      x86_64-linux: 0.00 builds per hour
      i686-linux: 0.00 builds per hour
      aarch64-linux: 0.00 builds per hour
------

I wonder what is going on?

bug#48926: Cuirass is not building Mutt

[Mathieu Othacehe]

Hello Leo,

> I wonder what is going on?

The current mutt package output is:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
mathieu@meije ~$ guix build mutt  --no-grafts
/gnu/store/c0wp5iq5k11mvqrm4bs011qlm7qy48ia-mutt-2.0.7
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

The last mutt build on the master specification is
https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/321231/details, that reports the same
output. This build has not been attempted again because its output
didn't change.

The substitute is however missing as you noticed. That's because the
Cuirass GC root expired, and the nar file also probably expired its 90
days TTL.

We should maybe increase this TTL, or make sure that every "latest"
master derivation is covered by a GC root.

WDYT?

Thanks,

Mathieu

bug#48926: Cuirass is not building Mutt

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org> skribis:

> The substitute is however missing as you noticed. That's because the
> Cuirass GC root expired, and the nar file also probably expired its 90
> days TTL.
>
> We should maybe increase this TTL, or make sure that every "latest"
> master derivation is covered by a GC root.
>
> WDYT?

Mathieu, do you have Zabbix graphs showing how we’re doing wrt. storage
on berlin?

If we’re doing well, we should definitely increase the ‘guix publish’ TTL.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

bug#48926: Cuirass is not building Mutt

[Mathieu Othacehe]

Hey,

> Mathieu, do you have Zabbix graphs showing how we’re doing wrt. storage
> on berlin?

Here's one attached, we have been stable around ~10TiB of free space for
the last couple of months.

> If we’re doing well, we should definitely increase the ‘guix publish’ TTL.

What about increasing it to say 180 days?

Thanks,

Mathieu

bug#48926: Cuirass is not building Mutt

[Mathieu Othacehe]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 34 bytes --]


With the attached file,

Mathieu

[-- Attachment #2: Screenshot from 2021-06-18 11-46-13.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 46303 bytes --]

bug#48926: Cuirass is not building Mutt

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org> skribis:

>> Mathieu, do you have Zabbix graphs showing how we’re doing wrt. storage
>> on berlin?
>
> Here's one attached, we have been stable around ~10TiB of free space for
> the last couple of months.

Interesting.

The graph suggests that GC is running everyday to collect probably a few
GiBs.  Perhaps we should ‘guix gc -F15T’ once a week to reduce GC work
on subsequent days?

>> If we’re doing well, we should definitely increase the ‘guix publish’ TTL.
>
> What about increasing it to say 180 days?

Sounds good to me.  Can you make the change?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

bug#48926: Cuirass is not building Mutt

[Mathieu Othacehe]

Hey,

>> What about increasing it to say 180 days?
>
> Sounds good to me.  Can you make the change?

That was done with ca6f40272fdf5644597f6ad2e38fa8ab2907d126.

Closing,

Thanks,

Mathieu