| 1 Mar 2025 |
 hexa | where is the default limit set? | 06:59:30 |
| hexa | a meta default? | 06:59:49 |
| hexa | I think we only configure a max-silent-time on the builders | 07:00:17 |
| hexa | and a max-unsupported-time on the queue-runner | 07:00:23 |
| hexa | Redacted or Malformed Event | 07:00:28 |
 Vladimír Čunát | .meta.timeout | 07:01:05 |
| hexa | pkgs/applications/networking/browsers/chromium/browser.nix
121: timeout = 172800; # 48 hours (increased from the Hydra default of 10h)
| 07:01:34 |
| hexa | 🤡 | 07:01:36 |
| hexa | * pkgs/applications/networking/browsers/chromium/browser.nix
121: timeout = 172800; # 48 hours (increased from the Hydra default of 10h)
pkgs/development/tools/electron/common.nix
287: timeout = 172800; # 48 hours (increased from the Hydra default of 10h)
| 07:01:49 |
| hexa | meta.timeout is not set by default, so … where is the default? 😄 | 07:02:35 |
| Vladimír Čunát | I think it's in Hydra config. | 07:02:50 |
| hexa | 
Download image.png | 07:03:04 |
| hexa | , timeout => getMeta($buildInfo->{meta}->{timeout}, 36000)
| 07:03:33 |
| hexa | indeed, here we are | 07:03:35 |
| hexa | lun: I'm a bit afraid to ask, but there is supposed to be a migraphx python package, and one of the packages I maintain would want that to support rocm 🙈 | 07:09:15 |
| hexa | supposedly this https://github.com/ROCm/AMDMIGraphX/blob/develop/src/py/migraphx_py.cpp | 07:13:00 |
 Lun | Mention it on the big ROCm tracking issue | 16:04:24 |
| Lun | definitely worse: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/LunNova/b1cf007f1af52b4dc353fd9925857b97/raw/63ea9ec1a500d5ef6ad4f2f0eac7a59b6db6e310/huge%2520composable_kernel%2520template%2520instantiation.txt | 16:07:29 |
| Lun | The ~4h builds are nix cores config set to 128 on a 64c/128t epyc milan eng sample that's clocking down to <3GHz due to power limits, not sure what the relative speedup per core will be but probably not enough to overcome dropping to 24 build threads.
Does bumping meta.timeout to 20h to start with sound reasonable? | 16:13:51 |
 emily | might make sense to do 48 and then scale down based on the actual time | 16:19:08 |
| emily | to avoid spending 20 hours on a build that times out and gets thrown away | 16:19:16 |
| emily | (I am not on the infra team, don't trust anything I say) | 16:19:34 |
| Vladimír Čunát | I believe it's fine to put an unnecessarily big value in there. It's just a single package. I see the main purpose to limit some accidents where resources would be spent continually without bringing value. | 16:23:17 |
| Vladimír Čunát | But honestly, doing so much work in a single derivation is rather risky. Generally it's better to split it up. | 16:24:19 |
| Vladimír Čunát | For example, sometimes we need to restart the queue runner, i.e. all builds in progress get scrapped. | 16:24:57 |
| Vladimír Čunát | We even had periods where it crashed often (same effect). | 16:25:16 |
| Lun | Haven't figured out a way to split it up yet that'll be easy to maintain | 16:26:25 |
| Vladimír Čunát | And I have some concerns about increasing latency of channels, but maybe that will turn out negligible. | 16:27:38 |
| Vladimír Čunát | * And I have some concerns about increasing latency of channel updates, but maybe that will turn out negligible. | 16:27:48 |
| Vladimír Čunát | As it is now, everyone will be waiting for this huge thing to finish. | 16:28:23 |
