Skip to content

workflows: Use ARM runners#405943

Merged
Mic92 merged 3 commits intoNixOS:masterfrom
wolfgangwalther:ci-arm64
May 11, 2025
Merged

workflows: Use ARM runners#405943
Mic92 merged 3 commits intoNixOS:masterfrom
wolfgangwalther:ci-arm64

Conversation

@wolfgangwalther
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@wolfgangwalther wolfgangwalther commented May 10, 2025

ARM runners are supposed to be more energy efficient than x86. Also, from limited testing, they appear to be faster for the eval jobs as well. Average run time for the "Outpaths (x86_64-linux)" job was 4m 27s earlier. In the first few runs, this job came in between 3m 9s and 3m 20s, so far. This effect did not show for other jobs, yet.

The following two exceptions are made right now:

  • nixpkgs-lib-tests currently fails on the ARM runner building Nix 2.3 (it does work locally for me, though... odd)
  • nixpkgs-vet is currently pinned to a x86_64-linux only binary release

Let's be good citizen, save some energy - and enjoy slightly faster eval in CI, shall we?

Things done

Tested in wolfgangwalther#637.


Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

@github-actions github-actions bot added 6.topic: continuous integration Affects continuous integration (CI) in Nixpkgs, including Ofborg and GitHub Actions 6.topic: policy discussion Discuss policies to work in and around Nixpkgs backport release-24.11 labels May 10, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Darwin. 10.rebuild-linux: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Linux. labels May 10, 2025
@winterqt
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

nixpkgs-lib-tests currently fails on the ARM runner building Nix 2.3 (it does work locally for me, though... odd)

Probably just something with the GHA environment, tbh. I wonder if the same occurs with latest Nix within the GHA ARM runners? My money would be on them failing as well.

@wolfgangwalther
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Probably just something with the GHA environment, tbh. I wonder if the same occurs with latest Nix within the GHA ARM runners? My money would be on them failing as well.

Yeah, that's probably right. I don't think it's version specific either.

ARM runners are supposed to be more energy efficient than x86. Also,
from limited testing, they appear to be faster for the eval jobs as
well. Average run time for the "Outpaths (x86_64-linux)" job was 4m 27s,
so far. In the first run, this job came in at 3m 9s. This effect did not
show for other jobs, yet.

The following two exceptions are made right now:
- nixpkgs-lib-tests currently fails on the ARM runner building Nix 2.3
- nixpkgs-vet is currently pinned to a x86_64-linux only binary release
GitHub has all the different runners, so we can just as well check that
shell.nix works.
@wolfgangwalther
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Just resolved merge conflict after merge of #406113.

@Mic92 Mic92 merged commit 5a1b4e0 into NixOS:master May 11, 2025
19 of 22 checks passed
@nixpkgs-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

nixpkgs-ci bot commented May 11, 2025

Git push to origin failed for release-24.11 with exitcode 1

@nixpkgs-ci
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

nixpkgs-ci bot commented May 11, 2025

Git push to origin failed for release-24.11 with exitcode 1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

6.topic: continuous integration Affects continuous integration (CI) in Nixpkgs, including Ofborg and GitHub Actions 6.topic: policy discussion Discuss policies to work in and around Nixpkgs 8.has: port to stable This PR already has a backport to the stable release. 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Darwin. 10.rebuild-linux: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Linux.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants