Skip to content

rPackages: eval and build#437199

Closed
jopejoe1 wants to merge 1 commit intoNixOS:stagingfrom
jopejoe1:eval-r
Closed

rPackages: eval and build#437199
jopejoe1 wants to merge 1 commit intoNixOS:stagingfrom
jopejoe1:eval-r

Conversation

@jopejoe1
Copy link
Member

Split from #434501

Things done

  • Built on platform:
    • x86_64-linux
    • aarch64-linux
    • x86_64-darwin
    • aarch64-darwin
  • Tested, as applicable:
  • Ran nixpkgs-review on this PR. See nixpkgs-review usage.
  • Tested basic functionality of all binary files, usually in ./result/bin/.
  • Nixpkgs Release Notes
    • Package update: when the change is major or breaking.
  • NixOS Release Notes
    • Module addition: when adding a new NixOS module.
    • Module update: when the change is significant.
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md, pkgs/README.md, maintainers/README.md and other READMEs.

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

@nixpkgs-ci nixpkgs-ci bot added 10.rebuild-linux: 501+ This PR causes many rebuilds on Linux and should normally target the staging branches. 10.rebuild-darwin: 501+ This PR causes many rebuilds on Darwin and should normally target the staging branches. 10.rebuild-darwin: 5001+ This PR causes many rebuilds on Darwin and must target the staging branches. 10.rebuild-linux: 5001+ This PR causes many rebuilds on Linux and must target the staging branches. labels Aug 26, 2025
@ofborg ofborg bot added the ofborg-internal-error Ofborg encountered an error label Aug 26, 2025
@nixpkgs-ci nixpkgs-ci bot added the 9.needs: reviewer This PR currently has no reviewers requested and needs attention. label Aug 26, 2025
@wolfgangwalther wolfgangwalther requested a review from jbedo August 26, 2025 18:21
@wolfgangwalther
Copy link
Contributor

Relevant discussion in #434501 (comment).

@nixpkgs-ci nixpkgs-ci bot added 2.status: merge conflict This PR has merge conflicts with the target branch and removed 9.needs: reviewer This PR currently has no reviewers requested and needs attention. labels Aug 26, 2025
@jopejoe1 jopejoe1 changed the base branch from master to staging August 26, 2025 18:28
@nixpkgs-ci nixpkgs-ci bot closed this Aug 26, 2025
@nixpkgs-ci nixpkgs-ci bot reopened this Aug 26, 2025
@nixpkgs-ci nixpkgs-ci bot added 2.status: merge conflict This PR has merge conflicts with the target branch and removed 2.status: merge conflict This PR has merge conflicts with the target branch labels Aug 26, 2025
@ofborg ofborg bot removed the ofborg-internal-error Ofborg encountered an error label Sep 1, 2025
@nixpkgs-ci nixpkgs-ci bot removed the 2.status: merge conflict This PR has merge conflicts with the target branch label Sep 1, 2025
@nixpkgs-ci nixpkgs-ci bot added the 2.status: merge conflict This PR has merge conflicts with the target branch label Sep 6, 2025
@nixpkgs-ci nixpkgs-ci bot removed the 2.status: merge conflict This PR has merge conflicts with the target branch label Sep 6, 2025
@jopejoe1
Copy link
Member Author

jopejoe1 commented Oct 8, 2025

Any feedback on this?

@wolfgangwalther
Copy link
Contributor

I have asked in the Staging room on Matrix, but there is no clear feedback, yet.

@vcunat
Copy link
Member

vcunat commented Oct 9, 2025

I'm honestly worried that adding almost 100k jobs permanently won't be cheap for the infra even if the jobs themselves are "cheap" (which I assume). Even nowadays for *-linux we're typically blocked on the central parts and aren't able to fully utilize the builders (sometimes aarch64-linux:big-parallel is an exception).

@vcunat
Copy link
Member

vcunat commented Oct 9, 2025

Those permanents jobs would get rebuilt from scratch every week or two. So it's much much cheaper to do the separate jobset from time to time if the people around R desire that, especially if we do it on a single linux platform only.

@wolfgangwalther
Copy link
Contributor

For future reference / decision making and understanding: The limiting factor here is evaluation? The queue runner? The actual builds?

Is there a certain factor that would need to change in the future, so that this becomes possible to do?

@vcunat
Copy link
Member

vcunat commented Oct 9, 2025

Evaluation would be somewhat longer surely. I don't think that's a big issue itself, though what I see as limiting is that the whole eval happens inside a single postgresql transaction. Making it even more humongous certainly is a risk. Even now we can get several minutes of hydra almost stalling because of processing this transaction and other tasks like working on jobs from the same jobset would often conflict from DB point of view. (the biggest jobsets have something like 260k jobs now, so increase by 100k would be significant)

Overall I'd say the most limiting factor is ingestion of builds by the queue runner. No idea if that will be significantly better by some change soon, e.g. the runner rewrite or some cache.nixos.org changes.

@wolfgangwalther
Copy link
Contributor

Cool, thanks for that helpful info!

Overall I'd say the most limiting factor is ingestion of builds by the queue runner. No idea if that will be significantly better by some change soon, e.g. the runner rewrite or some cache.nixos.org changes.

Will we be able to test / know once these are available - or would we have to test building rPackages in practice once that's the case?

@vcunat
Copy link
Member

vcunat commented Oct 9, 2025

It seems hard to know exactly. Even measuring, as in normal hydra.nixos.org you tend to do multiple things at the same time.

@jbedo
Copy link
Contributor

jbedo commented Oct 10, 2025

We're currently in a tough spot as rPackages is not built as part of trunk, and the r-updates jobset has been disabled since pre 24.11, leaving us with no CI at all. I've been running a hydra server on my own hardware for the past year so that we can still update the tree with some quality control. I'd be happy to collect any statistics on my hydra server that would help.

@vcunat
Copy link
Member

vcunat commented Oct 11, 2025

r-updates on x86_64-linux once in a while is certainly no issue for hydra.nixos.org, with only a small fraction of price of this PR, I'd say.

@nixpkgs-ci nixpkgs-ci bot added the 2.status: merge conflict This PR has merge conflicts with the target branch label Jan 24, 2026
@jopejoe1
Copy link
Member Author

What I wanted to do with this PR gets done now with #482817

@jopejoe1 jopejoe1 closed this Jan 30, 2026
@jopejoe1 jopejoe1 deleted the eval-r branch January 30, 2026 18:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

2.status: merge conflict This PR has merge conflicts with the target branch 10.rebuild-darwin: 501+ This PR causes many rebuilds on Darwin and should normally target the staging branches. 10.rebuild-darwin: 5001+ This PR causes many rebuilds on Darwin and must target the staging branches. 10.rebuild-linux: 501+ This PR causes many rebuilds on Linux and should normally target the staging branches. 10.rebuild-linux: 5001+ This PR causes many rebuilds on Linux and must target the staging branches.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants