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 GETcA+kIYGO35AAAbAwnHQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 18:42:01 +0100 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 OEIZA+kIYGMYSAEAG6o9tA (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 18:42:01 +0100 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 9CF3920FB2 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 18:42:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1opYmz-0008PZ-Rm; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:41:33 -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 1opYmC-0007cy-OB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:40:49 -0400 Received: from mailout2.hostsharing.net ([83.223.78.233]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1opYm4-0007ml-I7 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:40:41 -0400 Received: from h20.hostsharing.net (h20.hostsharing.net [IPv6:2a01:37:1000::53df:5fec:0]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "*.hostsharing.net", Issuer "RapidSSL TLS DV RSA Mixed SHA256 2020 CA-1" (verified OK)) by mailout2.hostsharing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5518310029B7E for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 18:40:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from anna.fritz.box (55d41f18.access.ecotel.net [85.212.31.24]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by h20.hostsharing.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 34E1C18384 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 18:40:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <647516d52f32ecd11225530187d8d4ff87ae621d.camel@platen-software.de> Subject: Re: Status of armhf-linux and powerpc64le-linux From: Tobias Platen To: guix-devel@gnu.org Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 18:40:27 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87h6zx8t3e.fsf_-_@gnu.org> References: <87edvlknv5.fsf@gnu.org> <874jw7oinf.fsf@gnu.org> <878rlaehbn.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87h6zyo811.fsf@gnu.org> <87h6zx8t3e.fsf_-_@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.3-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: none client-ip=83.223.78.233; envelope-from=guix@platen-software.de; helo=mailout2.hostsharing.net X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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: , Sender: "Guix-devel" Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org 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=1667238120; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to: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; bh=q7RgBCefVYG4rZoY5Ie29/a87rm62uNOmsiKTbwubjo=; b=KVjNx7cBTREO3/eKzg2e8S50vzRwlAZ3PNif0wYWEd65k91U6RKlKnjre9lgEDZG3NLqkP q5S0VRBX5IrbpDl+Bp1aF4u0QlX0Q5w1Is3Ic86PwGZOJV8js8hF+Hv9KJ6LtPuoaL7xjr sqcLim9wRlWSHlcHhQcs//2dU+v+99reET3lgVRbw1/C54pEw98JHIA2+mg6SLneyEL8ii rsVSt7qqxjAqfdRJq9JnAQFX7ckx0IUnaZHBizqHeZ6osNLU/hH8B49VJ0RFaIAjpyEGcn kMXJW94UPPCHCBuYg2vjXuaBYSUQ898lseri+MLPIvuSEt68bP+zozU+d8GSrg== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1667238120; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=PMzsxNo6k9Tb1xmvlWkLuTX4UGo55j4SSCzk9cHG0R3qP+0o4uWOQborAxpQ9cszwgo+Du uBF+GwQ5zK7/XbT/FJtdkNlmtMJc4XFTWWghG2JRBYa/Uz8S+G84aE0CFju0fBf3iZ3f8M jkNATS+lifgNxHrcV1kybwHgYHmC/mvIAmmF7/8fgcpRrHR7w3eh4whAeU+/oBemYD9DhQ bkWMswf64vC6/650Vth3dhx3yqkeXIdwK6NJAuFrVsENjzRylv6mEhemTxyRpjsZY77RLH nhetab/7Uk0xK3DCN/nAV9gvucSWXxUS3sXRYNf7jPJi08UZfaRTcpFwm7xRGQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -3.87 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 9CF3920FB2 X-Spam-Score: -3.87 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: Pje5wer8FwUS On Fri, 2022-10-21 at 10:43 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > 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 “only” 51 days, but it seems to have 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’ll be > inefficient, but that’ll let Cuirass survive transient failures of > that > one POWER9 box. > > WDYT? > > Longer-term, people interested in POWER9 should look into: > >   • Purchasing, setting up, and hosting POWER9 hardware (funds held > at >     the FSF are probably sufficient for that!). Vikings also offers hosting of POWER9 hardware. > >   • 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’t > 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 “just” because of infrastructure > 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’s not that bad, and they don’t seem to be all > that busy. > > So you’re 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’s radical, but maybe that’s 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’ll 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’. >