Skip to content
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

nix-eval-jobs + constituent globs #1433

Draft
wants to merge 6 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

Ma27
Copy link
Member

@Ma27 Ma27 commented Jan 23, 2025

Depends on nix-community/nix-eval-jobs#349 & #1421.

Only the last commit is relevant for review, the rest is #1421.

delroth and others added 6 commits December 10, 2024 10:27
(cherry picked from commit 684cc50)
incrementally ingest eval results

nix-eval-jobs streams output, unlike hydra-eval-jobs. Now that we've
migrated, we can use this to:

1. Use less RAM by avoiding buffering a whole eval's worth of metadata
   into a Perl string and an array of JSON objects.
2. Make evals latency a bit lower by allowing the queue runner to start
   ingesting builds faster.

Also use the newly-restored constituents support in `nix-eval-jobs`

Note, we pass --workers and --max-memory-size to n-e-j

Lost in the h-e-j -> n-e-j migration, causing evaluation to always be
single threaded and limited to 4GiB RAM. Follow the config settings like
h-e-j used to do (via C++ code).

(cherry picked from commit 6d4ccff)
(cherry picked from commit b0e9b4b)
(cherry picked from commit cdfc5c81e8037d3e4818a3e459d0804b2c157ea9)
(cherry picked from commit 4b107e6)

Co-Authored-By: Maximilian Bosch <[email protected]>
Depends on nix-community/nix-eval-jobs#349 & NixOS#1421.

Almost equivalent to NixOS#1425, but with a small change: when having e.g. an
aggregate job with a glob that matches nothing, the jobset evaluation is
failed now. This was the intended behavior before (hydra-eval-jobset
fails hard if an aggregate is broken), the code-path was never reached
however since the aggregate was never marked as broken in this case
before.
@Ma27 Ma27 requested review from Mic92 and Ericson2314 January 23, 2025 12:29
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants