From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp10.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms5.migadu.com with LMTPS id 2BiEEj9fUmOjTgEAbAwnHQ (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:58:39 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp10.migadu.com with LMTPS id UNjPET9fUmNxQgAAG6o9tA (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:58:39 +0200 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D81D78EAC for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:58:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1olnrR-00015l-UU for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 04:58:37 -0400 Received: from [::1] (helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1olnd7-0001BO-0a for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 04:43:49 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1olncv-00010N-E8 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 04:43:37 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1olncv-0000dN-5v for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 04:43:37 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:To: From; bh=4ArcLXHhlrNlPZu5srYcr/NatWFXeM3ciI8qHnGbZeg=; b=DdS7/IIDXSqkPglsRA/t ZtzFFOjv+ehhJK3KjZOkTk8en7Gcwsgr51S3cpbugFJERCHEzhlG98zYDJ3NPqXpghyOmMYoIWsUf 06noBTHy0RLlNByqRoE3VgWNJt446Gbq4+HUuT2Y5rBOWhMhCEp6frXqOPkMqhVndGLwC+Fdbxf/3 PtkMRha0AlzukjZsI74UkgPI9v8V3fXcpDInCXKOeqy70fOBQAgLxTni9pl4HSr1U6GQ7z4lLrXr8 IAMXvM/hiHGUvciZyiEbvGarBZ1wBsQ7nZOdMeAS/mx2FogZ8COib1TIxk6maD6lIsDL5eJGKZ0Nc 7a/Mc+DexamjWQ==; Received: from [193.50.110.59] (helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1olncu-0000Jx-EX; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 04:43:36 -0400 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Mathieu Othacehe Cc: Guix-devel Subject: Status of armhf-linux and powerpc64le-linux References: <87edvlknv5.fsf@gnu.org> <874jw7oinf.fsf@gnu.org> <878rlaehbn.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87h6zyo811.fsf@gnu.org> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: =?utf-8?Q?D=C3=A9cadi?= 30 =?utf-8?Q?Vend=C3=A9miair?= =?utf-8?Q?e?= an 231 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution=2C?= jour du Tonneau X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:43:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87h6zyo811.fsf@gnu.org> (Mathieu Othacehe's message of "Thu, 20 Oct 2022 16:59:38 +0200") Message-ID: <87h6zx8t3e.fsf_-_@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1666342719; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=4ArcLXHhlrNlPZu5srYcr/NatWFXeM3ciI8qHnGbZeg=; b=StgXTK5DiH6rD+ijrrdqLNSQCJb9QrnIe4IB2dGMv01t5CwPhZSQ/8IVoVx2Liq7vuwufq ZCHlPYPy7zB0r5W3bCt3yS9iwXti2ADsE8MMAjNd3D8d0nyYF9QDOgDHgltYe+aufLnASq ivKQHjDjUpvfCQ3sVMy1eURiUaK+vVOwt5Cn/sI6GQlLrY+QCJSP0At/vBRGp7Zxiu3tRn 9TUK26CA/4dZsAOFEplyJ2PYVJlrLWWtwgt5y/fDcnxKh3iqsBztnDapBM0ZRplZXrP/m9 dp7XWpt+oBeBC9hQIvfNBLxDNMZe6K0d1pyOTwbFLMUOnVuxCDWmrPlEC/W5cg== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1666342719; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=sLeD4JZXM3d1Wj7AmqPNN8Pm/e12RLrSAlxydfSIEmWgmP9WULTcRjUU86zfdfDGt3KxDI JYY/o+hY5oPpKSMnlQNUgdW4M+t6Hdpl+O+gn1de0h1Pw7O3Suz6T+hvZC1hujUSoIEaNI zuYKFYyiC4mpA+K9WyoNiRjgvKE1MvJAShTKjjf2VFHmA0w7k0BrfXOLrZDPDMdYnnMDBO 5/cfhV7U/avEnA/4J0cpuanJlPthNPsZtCwj5NTYaefjLhnt+hqUmPJ6fm/pfNTIPkkwDW fKgRuJ7WLiML9wlMIFbzjtf5Eu5e/J24+bnohUjqo8CCegnyTfgtm0VG40PQFQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b="DdS7/IID"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -3.64 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b="DdS7/IID"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Queue-Id: D81D78EAC X-Spam-Score: -3.64 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: fOHMMVFxAeq1 Moin! Mathieu Othacehe skribis: >> - armhf-linux is disabled on ci.guix due to improper offloading >> setup (probably along the lines of >> ). Should we try and reenable >> it, or should we drop it? >> >> - powerpc64le-linux is disabled on ci.guix since today >> (maintenance.git commit >> d641115e20973731555b586985fa81fbe293aeca). However it did work >> until recently and we have one machine to offload to. Should we >> fix it or drop it? Mathieu? > > Yeah, we only have a single machine to offload to and each time it is > not reachable, the "guix" specification fails on Cuirass. How frequently does that machine become unreachable? Its uptime right now is =E2=80=9Conly=E2=80=9D 51 days, but it seems to hav= e been reliably building things so far (surprisingly so!). > That's because we need to offload to a powerpc64le-linux machine in > order to evaluate the guix derivation for that specific architecture > (that's true for all the other architectures). Maybe we should arrange to be more resilient to transient build machine outage. For that we need redundancy; we have it for ARM, but not for POWER9. A simple way to get redundancy today would be to set up transparent emulation for POWER9 on one of the x86_64 boxes. That=E2=80=99ll be inefficient, but that=E2=80=99ll let Cuirass survive transient failures of = that one POWER9 box. WDYT? Longer-term, people interested in POWER9 should look into: =E2=80=A2 Purchasing, setting up, and hosting POWER9 hardware (funds held= at the FSF are probably sufficient for that!). =E2=80=A2 And/or: getting in touch with companies who could sponsor us by providing hardware (the AArch64 port was started thanks to a donation by ARM). In Cuirass, we should arrange to support partial evaluations or per-system evaluations so that a single missing offload machine doesn=E2=80= =99t cause the whole evaluation to fail. > Given the lack of workers for powerpc64le-linux I think we should drop > it. We can do that, but I find embarrassing to drop the architecture after all the work people have put it =E2=80=9Cjust=E2=80=9D because of infrastru= cture issues. > Regarding armhf-linux we can in theory rely on the overdrives but we > are already struggling on aarch64-linux, we I think we should also > drop it for now. In theory, ci.guix has at least 3 Honeycombs (2 are currently offline) and 2 Overdrives, so it=E2=80=99s not that bad, and they don=E2=80=99t seem= to be all that busy. So you=E2=80=99re right in a way, but at the same time this seems to be an infrastructure issue. > Focusing on x86_64-linux, i686-linux and aarch64-linux for this release > seems more pragmatic. That=E2=80=99s radical, but maybe that=E2=80=99s the most reasonable option. How about a plan like this: until next Thursday, we try to address the infrastructure issues discussed above to estimate feasibility. Then we decide on the way forward. WDYT? If we end up dropping architectures, we=E2=80=99ll have to: 1. Update the documentation (and eventually the web site). 2. Offer a clear plan as to what it would take to reinstate those architectures, and probably define clear criteria for architecture support going forward. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.