Re: [Nix-dev] i686 Builds?
Hi. On 05/12/2015 12:45 AM, William Kennington wrote: > Maybe it would make more sense to only build the i686 builds if our > tested set of x86_64 binaries build correctly. This seems the best suggestion I know of now. It shouldn't be difficult to implement, and it also makes important x86_64 parts build before i686, which I find good for fixing problems. BTW, I once opened an issue for X32 ABI discussion https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/1579 It would be nice if we had an option to say "evaluate these platforms less often, e.g. every fifth evaluation". Similarly, some core stuff might be good to evaluate more often, e.g. the tarball (done by Travis ATM). Then we could have some less common platforms without being too expensive (maybe even things like ARM cross-builds of core stuff). But I expect it would bring more complexity to hydra, as not all evaluations would have the same set of jobs... Vladimir smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] i686 Builds?
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 01:21:59PM +0200, Eelco Dolstra wrote: > On 12/05/15 12:49, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote: > > > Yes. Maybe it got renamed... It used to be named 'amd32'. > > It's called x32: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32_ABI Thank you! So this thread could end up in an extra nixos architecture instead of one less. Years ago, I had a tweak to my nixos (never pushed upstream) that used a 64-bit kernel with 32-bit userspace. This allowed me to install specific programs 64-bit with nix-env. The purpose was to have a general memory saving, but keeping fast calculations in specific things (like melt, ffmpeg, ...). Regards, Lluís. ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] i686 Builds?
On 12/05/15 12:49, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote: > Yes. Maybe it got renamed... It used to be named 'amd32'. It's called x32: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32_ABI -- Eelco Dolstra | LogicBlox, Inc. | http://nixos.org/~eelco/ ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] i686 Builds?
Yes. Maybe it got renamed... It used to be named 'amd32'. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:45:36PM +0200, Tomasz Kontusz wrote: > By amd32 do you mean amd64 with 32 bit pointers? > > "Lluís Batlle i Rossell" napisał: > >amd32 should be ready in the kernel and gcc/glibc. We just need someone > >to > >prepare nix/nixpgks/nixos for this. :) > > > >On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:05:29PM +0200, Christian Theune wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> same here. > >> > >> Many interpreted languages (like Python) are affected by this as they > >tend to be quite pointer-happy. As pointer-size doubles from 32bit to > >64bit we find that in most applications we have about 70% increase when > >moving to 64-bit ending up with 1.7 as much memory as before. So we > >also currently run applications in 32-bit virtual machines and rather > >use many 3GiB processes than a few bigger ones. Moving from 3GiB to > >64bit requires about 5GiB just to even out the pointer-size effects. > >> > >> Supposedly the amd64 instruction set has some benefits that make e.g. > >Python run faster on certain computational stuff, but I don’t have > >prove for that. > >> > >> In the long term we will include 64-bit in the mix anyway as some > >applications (Mongo, sigh) are quite trigger happy with allocating > >virtual (non residential) memory for mmapping insane numbers of > >insanely large files … > >> > >> Christian > >> > >> > On 12 May 2015, at 11:59, Lluís Batlle i Rossell > >wrote: > >> > > >> > My experience is equal with Marco, about memory and my usage of > >i686. i686 > >> > is important for me too. > >> > > >> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:43:47AM +0200, Marco Maggesi wrote: > >> >> I use 32 bit a lot. > >> >> First of all, I use it on some old machines with 32bit hardware. > >> >> But, more importantly, I use it regularly on virtuabox and xen > >virtual > >> >> machines. > >> >> In my experience, for most of my use cases the 32bit require less > >memory > >> >> (which is often not abundant on virtual instances) and it is thus > >generally > >> >> faster for many computing tasks . I made some tests with HOL > >Light (the > >> >> theorem prover). The bare program has memory occupation which > >almost the > >> >> double in the 64bit version (~1.2Gb) with respect to the 32bit > >version > >> >> (~0.7Gb). On a virtual machine with 2Gb of ram, the 32 bit it is > >often > >> >> 10%-20% faster on typical usage and 50% faster or more when the > >computation > >> >> requires more memory. > >> >> In my experience, the version 32 bit can be more convenient than > >the 64bit > >> >> version in a variety of situations. > >> >> So, please, do not give-up with 32 bit support. > >> >> Marco > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 2015-05-12 11:08 GMT+02:00 Luke Clifton : > >> >> > >> >>> +1 > >> >>> > >> >>> This seems like a good idea. > >> >>> > >> >>> On 12 May 2015 at 06:45, William Kennington > > > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>> > >> Maybe it would make more sense to only build the i686 builds if > >our > >> tested set of x86_64 binaries build correctly. We would still > >release with > >> both but it would cut down on a lot of redundant failures. > >> > >> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:39 PM Ryan Trinkle > > > >> wrote: > >> > >> > I encountered an i686 user just the other day! I don't use it > >> > personally, but having solid support in Nix was fantastic, > >especially > >> > because older, 32-bit machines tend to be slower, which makes > >Nix's binary > >> > caching functionality even more important. > >> > > >> > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Shea Levy > >wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi all, > >> >> > >> >> Do we still have users running 32-bit machines? It would > >reduce the > >> >> load on > >> >> hydra significantly if we could drop support for i686, though > >of course > >> >> if > >> >> people are still relying on it we shouldn't make the change > >yet. > >> >> > >> >> ~Shea > >> >> ___ > >> >> nix-dev mailing list > >> >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > >> >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > >> >> > >> > > >> > ___ > >> > nix-dev mailing list > >> > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > >> > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > >> > > >> > >> ___ > >> nix-dev mailing list > >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > >> > >> > >> >>> > >> >>> ___ > >> >>> nix-dev mailing list > >> >>> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > >> >>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> > > >> >> ___ > >> >> nix-dev mailing list > >> >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > >>
Re: [Nix-dev] i686 Builds?
By amd32 do you mean amd64 with 32 bit pointers? "Lluís Batlle i Rossell" napisał: >amd32 should be ready in the kernel and gcc/glibc. We just need someone >to >prepare nix/nixpgks/nixos for this. :) > >On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:05:29PM +0200, Christian Theune wrote: >> Hi, >> >> same here. >> >> Many interpreted languages (like Python) are affected by this as they >tend to be quite pointer-happy. As pointer-size doubles from 32bit to >64bit we find that in most applications we have about 70% increase when >moving to 64-bit ending up with 1.7 as much memory as before. So we >also currently run applications in 32-bit virtual machines and rather >use many 3GiB processes than a few bigger ones. Moving from 3GiB to >64bit requires about 5GiB just to even out the pointer-size effects. >> >> Supposedly the amd64 instruction set has some benefits that make e.g. >Python run faster on certain computational stuff, but I don’t have >prove for that. >> >> In the long term we will include 64-bit in the mix anyway as some >applications (Mongo, sigh) are quite trigger happy with allocating >virtual (non residential) memory for mmapping insane numbers of >insanely large files … >> >> Christian >> >> > On 12 May 2015, at 11:59, Lluís Batlle i Rossell >wrote: >> > >> > My experience is equal with Marco, about memory and my usage of >i686. i686 >> > is important for me too. >> > >> > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:43:47AM +0200, Marco Maggesi wrote: >> >> I use 32 bit a lot. >> >> First of all, I use it on some old machines with 32bit hardware. >> >> But, more importantly, I use it regularly on virtuabox and xen >virtual >> >> machines. >> >> In my experience, for most of my use cases the 32bit require less >memory >> >> (which is often not abundant on virtual instances) and it is thus >generally >> >> faster for many computing tasks . I made some tests with HOL >Light (the >> >> theorem prover). The bare program has memory occupation which >almost the >> >> double in the 64bit version (~1.2Gb) with respect to the 32bit >version >> >> (~0.7Gb). On a virtual machine with 2Gb of ram, the 32 bit it is >often >> >> 10%-20% faster on typical usage and 50% faster or more when the >computation >> >> requires more memory. >> >> In my experience, the version 32 bit can be more convenient than >the 64bit >> >> version in a variety of situations. >> >> So, please, do not give-up with 32 bit support. >> >> Marco >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2015-05-12 11:08 GMT+02:00 Luke Clifton : >> >> >> >>> +1 >> >>> >> >>> This seems like a good idea. >> >>> >> >>> On 12 May 2015 at 06:45, William Kennington > >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> Maybe it would make more sense to only build the i686 builds if >our >> tested set of x86_64 binaries build correctly. We would still >release with >> both but it would cut down on a lot of redundant failures. >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:39 PM Ryan Trinkle > >> wrote: >> >> > I encountered an i686 user just the other day! I don't use it >> > personally, but having solid support in Nix was fantastic, >especially >> > because older, 32-bit machines tend to be slower, which makes >Nix's binary >> > caching functionality even more important. >> > >> > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Shea Levy >wrote: >> > >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Do we still have users running 32-bit machines? It would >reduce the >> >> load on >> >> hydra significantly if we could drop support for i686, though >of course >> >> if >> >> people are still relying on it we shouldn't make the change >yet. >> >> >> >> ~Shea >> >> ___ >> >> nix-dev mailing list >> >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >> >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> >> >> > >> > ___ >> > nix-dev mailing list >> > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >> > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> > >> >> ___ >> nix-dev mailing list >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> >> >> >>> >> >>> ___ >> >>> nix-dev mailing list >> >>> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >> >>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> >>> >> >>> >> > >> >> ___ >> >> nix-dev mailing list >> >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >> >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> > >> > >> > -- >> > (Escriu-me xifrat si saps PGP / Write ciphered if you know PGP) >> > PGP key D4831A8A - https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/ >> > ___ >> > nix-dev mailing list >> > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >> > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> >> — >> Christian Theune ·
Re: [Nix-dev] i686 Builds?
amd32 should be ready in the kernel and gcc/glibc. We just need someone to prepare nix/nixpgks/nixos for this. :) On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 12:05:29PM +0200, Christian Theune wrote: > Hi, > > same here. > > Many interpreted languages (like Python) are affected by this as they tend to > be quite pointer-happy. As pointer-size doubles from 32bit to 64bit we find > that in most applications we have about 70% increase when moving to 64-bit > ending up with 1.7 as much memory as before. So we also currently run > applications in 32-bit virtual machines and rather use many 3GiB processes > than a few bigger ones. Moving from 3GiB to 64bit requires about 5GiB just to > even out the pointer-size effects. > > Supposedly the amd64 instruction set has some benefits that make e.g. Python > run faster on certain computational stuff, but I don’t have prove for that. > > In the long term we will include 64-bit in the mix anyway as some > applications (Mongo, sigh) are quite trigger happy with allocating virtual > (non residential) memory for mmapping insane numbers of insanely large files … > > Christian > > > On 12 May 2015, at 11:59, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote: > > > > My experience is equal with Marco, about memory and my usage of i686. i686 > > is important for me too. > > > > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:43:47AM +0200, Marco Maggesi wrote: > >> I use 32 bit a lot. > >> First of all, I use it on some old machines with 32bit hardware. > >> But, more importantly, I use it regularly on virtuabox and xen virtual > >> machines. > >> In my experience, for most of my use cases the 32bit require less memory > >> (which is often not abundant on virtual instances) and it is thus generally > >> faster for many computing tasks . I made some tests with HOL Light (the > >> theorem prover). The bare program has memory occupation which almost the > >> double in the 64bit version (~1.2Gb) with respect to the 32bit version > >> (~0.7Gb). On a virtual machine with 2Gb of ram, the 32 bit it is often > >> 10%-20% faster on typical usage and 50% faster or more when the computation > >> requires more memory. > >> In my experience, the version 32 bit can be more convenient than the 64bit > >> version in a variety of situations. > >> So, please, do not give-up with 32 bit support. > >> Marco > >> > >> > >> > >> 2015-05-12 11:08 GMT+02:00 Luke Clifton : > >> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> This seems like a good idea. > >>> > >>> On 12 May 2015 at 06:45, William Kennington > >>> wrote: > >>> > Maybe it would make more sense to only build the i686 builds if our > tested set of x86_64 binaries build correctly. We would still release > with > both but it would cut down on a lot of redundant failures. > > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:39 PM Ryan Trinkle > wrote: > > > I encountered an i686 user just the other day! I don't use it > > personally, but having solid support in Nix was fantastic, especially > > because older, 32-bit machines tend to be slower, which makes Nix's > > binary > > caching functionality even more important. > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Shea Levy wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Do we still have users running 32-bit machines? It would reduce the > >> load on > >> hydra significantly if we could drop support for i686, though of course > >> if > >> people are still relying on it we shouldn't make the change yet. > >> > >> ~Shea > >> ___ > >> nix-dev mailing list > >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > >> > > > > ___ > > nix-dev mailing list > > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > > > > ___ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > > > >>> > >>> ___ > >>> nix-dev mailing list > >>> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > >>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > >>> > >>> > > > >> ___ > >> nix-dev mailing list > >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > > > > > > -- > > (Escriu-me xifrat si saps PGP / Write ciphered if you know PGP) > > PGP key D4831A8A - https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/ > > ___ > > nix-dev mailing list > > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > > — > Christian Theune · c...@flyingcircus.io · +49 345 219401 0 > Flying Circus Internet Operations GmbH · http://flyingcircus.io > Forsterstraße 29 · 06112 Halle (Saale) · Deutschland > HR Stendal HRB 21169 · Ge
Re: [Nix-dev] i686 Builds?
Hi, same here. Many interpreted languages (like Python) are affected by this as they tend to be quite pointer-happy. As pointer-size doubles from 32bit to 64bit we find that in most applications we have about 70% increase when moving to 64-bit ending up with 1.7 as much memory as before. So we also currently run applications in 32-bit virtual machines and rather use many 3GiB processes than a few bigger ones. Moving from 3GiB to 64bit requires about 5GiB just to even out the pointer-size effects. Supposedly the amd64 instruction set has some benefits that make e.g. Python run faster on certain computational stuff, but I don’t have prove for that. In the long term we will include 64-bit in the mix anyway as some applications (Mongo, sigh) are quite trigger happy with allocating virtual (non residential) memory for mmapping insane numbers of insanely large files … Christian > On 12 May 2015, at 11:59, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote: > > My experience is equal with Marco, about memory and my usage of i686. i686 > is important for me too. > > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:43:47AM +0200, Marco Maggesi wrote: >> I use 32 bit a lot. >> First of all, I use it on some old machines with 32bit hardware. >> But, more importantly, I use it regularly on virtuabox and xen virtual >> machines. >> In my experience, for most of my use cases the 32bit require less memory >> (which is often not abundant on virtual instances) and it is thus generally >> faster for many computing tasks . I made some tests with HOL Light (the >> theorem prover). The bare program has memory occupation which almost the >> double in the 64bit version (~1.2Gb) with respect to the 32bit version >> (~0.7Gb). On a virtual machine with 2Gb of ram, the 32 bit it is often >> 10%-20% faster on typical usage and 50% faster or more when the computation >> requires more memory. >> In my experience, the version 32 bit can be more convenient than the 64bit >> version in a variety of situations. >> So, please, do not give-up with 32 bit support. >> Marco >> >> >> >> 2015-05-12 11:08 GMT+02:00 Luke Clifton : >> >>> +1 >>> >>> This seems like a good idea. >>> >>> On 12 May 2015 at 06:45, William Kennington >>> wrote: >>> Maybe it would make more sense to only build the i686 builds if our tested set of x86_64 binaries build correctly. We would still release with both but it would cut down on a lot of redundant failures. On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:39 PM Ryan Trinkle wrote: > I encountered an i686 user just the other day! I don't use it > personally, but having solid support in Nix was fantastic, especially > because older, 32-bit machines tend to be slower, which makes Nix's binary > caching functionality even more important. > > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Shea Levy wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Do we still have users running 32-bit machines? It would reduce the >> load on >> hydra significantly if we could drop support for i686, though of course >> if >> people are still relying on it we shouldn't make the change yet. >> >> ~Shea >> ___ >> nix-dev mailing list >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> > > ___ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >>> >>> ___ >>> nix-dev mailing list >>> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >>> >>> > >> ___ >> nix-dev mailing list >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > > > -- > (Escriu-me xifrat si saps PGP / Write ciphered if you know PGP) > PGP key D4831A8A - https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/ > ___ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev — Christian Theune · c...@flyingcircus.io · +49 345 219401 0 Flying Circus Internet Operations GmbH · http://flyingcircus.io Forsterstraße 29 · 06112 Halle (Saale) · Deutschland HR Stendal HRB 21169 · Geschäftsführer: Christian. Theune, Christian. Zagrodnick signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] i686 Builds?
My experience is equal with Marco, about memory and my usage of i686. i686 is important for me too. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:43:47AM +0200, Marco Maggesi wrote: > I use 32 bit a lot. > First of all, I use it on some old machines with 32bit hardware. > But, more importantly, I use it regularly on virtuabox and xen virtual > machines. > In my experience, for most of my use cases the 32bit require less memory > (which is often not abundant on virtual instances) and it is thus generally > faster for many computing tasks . I made some tests with HOL Light (the > theorem prover). The bare program has memory occupation which almost the > double in the 64bit version (~1.2Gb) with respect to the 32bit version > (~0.7Gb). On a virtual machine with 2Gb of ram, the 32 bit it is often > 10%-20% faster on typical usage and 50% faster or more when the computation > requires more memory. > In my experience, the version 32 bit can be more convenient than the 64bit > version in a variety of situations. > So, please, do not give-up with 32 bit support. > Marco > > > > 2015-05-12 11:08 GMT+02:00 Luke Clifton : > > > +1 > > > > This seems like a good idea. > > > > On 12 May 2015 at 06:45, William Kennington > > wrote: > > > >> Maybe it would make more sense to only build the i686 builds if our > >> tested set of x86_64 binaries build correctly. We would still release with > >> both but it would cut down on a lot of redundant failures. > >> > >> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:39 PM Ryan Trinkle > >> wrote: > >> > >>> I encountered an i686 user just the other day! I don't use it > >>> personally, but having solid support in Nix was fantastic, especially > >>> because older, 32-bit machines tend to be slower, which makes Nix's binary > >>> caching functionality even more important. > >>> > >>> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Shea Levy wrote: > >>> > Hi all, > > Do we still have users running 32-bit machines? It would reduce the > load on > hydra significantly if we could drop support for i686, though of course > if > people are still relying on it we shouldn't make the change yet. > > ~Shea > ___ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > > >>> > >>> ___ > >>> nix-dev mailing list > >>> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > >>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > >>> > >> > >> ___ > >> nix-dev mailing list > >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > >> > >> > > > > ___ > > nix-dev mailing list > > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > > > > > ___ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev -- (Escriu-me xifrat si saps PGP / Write ciphered if you know PGP) PGP key D4831A8A - https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/ ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] i686 Builds?
I use 32 bit a lot. First of all, I use it on some old machines with 32bit hardware. But, more importantly, I use it regularly on virtuabox and xen virtual machines. In my experience, for most of my use cases the 32bit require less memory (which is often not abundant on virtual instances) and it is thus generally faster for many computing tasks . I made some tests with HOL Light (the theorem prover). The bare program has memory occupation which almost the double in the 64bit version (~1.2Gb) with respect to the 32bit version (~0.7Gb). On a virtual machine with 2Gb of ram, the 32 bit it is often 10%-20% faster on typical usage and 50% faster or more when the computation requires more memory. In my experience, the version 32 bit can be more convenient than the 64bit version in a variety of situations. So, please, do not give-up with 32 bit support. Marco 2015-05-12 11:08 GMT+02:00 Luke Clifton : > +1 > > This seems like a good idea. > > On 12 May 2015 at 06:45, William Kennington > wrote: > >> Maybe it would make more sense to only build the i686 builds if our >> tested set of x86_64 binaries build correctly. We would still release with >> both but it would cut down on a lot of redundant failures. >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:39 PM Ryan Trinkle >> wrote: >> >>> I encountered an i686 user just the other day! I don't use it >>> personally, but having solid support in Nix was fantastic, especially >>> because older, 32-bit machines tend to be slower, which makes Nix's binary >>> caching functionality even more important. >>> >>> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Shea Levy wrote: >>> Hi all, Do we still have users running 32-bit machines? It would reduce the load on hydra significantly if we could drop support for i686, though of course if people are still relying on it we shouldn't make the change yet. ~Shea ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >>> >>> ___ >>> nix-dev mailing list >>> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >>> >> >> ___ >> nix-dev mailing list >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> >> > > ___ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > > ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] i686 Builds?
+1 This seems like a good idea. On 12 May 2015 at 06:45, William Kennington wrote: > Maybe it would make more sense to only build the i686 builds if our tested > set of x86_64 binaries build correctly. We would still release with both > but it would cut down on a lot of redundant failures. > > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:39 PM Ryan Trinkle > wrote: > >> I encountered an i686 user just the other day! I don't use it >> personally, but having solid support in Nix was fantastic, especially >> because older, 32-bit machines tend to be slower, which makes Nix's binary >> caching functionality even more important. >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Shea Levy wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Do we still have users running 32-bit machines? It would reduce the load >>> on >>> hydra significantly if we could drop support for i686, though of course >>> if >>> people are still relying on it we shouldn't make the change yet. >>> >>> ~Shea >>> ___ >>> nix-dev mailing list >>> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >>> >> >> ___ >> nix-dev mailing list >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> > > ___ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > > ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] i686 Builds?
I'm still using i686 on my Atom based NAS. It would be okay for me if only nixos-minimal was build for i686. Nathan. On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 8:34 AM Tomasz Kontusz wrote: > I'm on x86_64 and use some of those for running games (mostly what the > steam package already pulls in, plus a few more that were needed for > specific games). > > The idea to only build them after x86_64 sounds pretty good. Actually, are > all packages build together with the tests or only after they pass? > > Shea Levy napisał: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Do we still have users running 32-bit machines? It would reduce the load on >> hydra significantly if we could drop support for i686, though of course if >> people are still relying on it we shouldn't make the change yet. >> >> ~Shea >> -- >> >> nix-dev mailing list >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> >> > -- > Wysłane za pomocą K-9 Mail. > ___ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] i686 Builds?
I'm on x86_64 and use some of those for running games (mostly what the steam package already pulls in, plus a few more that were needed for specific games). The idea to only build them after x86_64 sounds pretty good. Actually, are all packages build together with the tests or only after they pass? Shea Levy napisał: >Hi all, > >Do we still have users running 32-bit machines? It would reduce the >load on >hydra significantly if we could drop support for i686, though of course >if >people are still relying on it we shouldn't make the change yet. > >~Shea >___ >nix-dev mailing list >nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev -- Wysłane za pomocą K-9 Mail.___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] i686 Builds?
I'm relying on these builds on my home laptop. On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Shea Levy wrote: > Hi all, > > Do we still have users running 32-bit machines? It would reduce the load on > hydra significantly if we could drop support for i686, though of course if > people are still relying on it we shouldn't make the change yet. > > ~Shea > ___ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] i686 Builds?
Is there a way to get stats on which binary cache hashes are being retrieved? Would be interesting to see what percentage is i686 and scale build shares accordingly. On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Shea Levy wrote: > Hi all, > > Do we still have users running 32-bit machines? It would reduce the load on > hydra significantly if we could drop support for i686, though of course if > people are still relying on it we shouldn't make the change yet. > > ~Shea > ___ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] i686 Builds?
Maybe it would make more sense to only build the i686 builds if our tested set of x86_64 binaries build correctly. We would still release with both but it would cut down on a lot of redundant failures. On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 3:39 PM Ryan Trinkle wrote: > I encountered an i686 user just the other day! I don't use it personally, > but having solid support in Nix was fantastic, especially because older, > 32-bit machines tend to be slower, which makes Nix's binary caching > functionality even more important. > > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Shea Levy wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Do we still have users running 32-bit machines? It would reduce the load >> on >> hydra significantly if we could drop support for i686, though of course if >> people are still relying on it we shouldn't make the change yet. >> >> ~Shea >> ___ >> nix-dev mailing list >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> > > ___ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] i686 Builds?
I encountered an i686 user just the other day! I don't use it personally, but having solid support in Nix was fantastic, especially because older, 32-bit machines tend to be slower, which makes Nix's binary caching functionality even more important. On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Shea Levy wrote: > Hi all, > > Do we still have users running 32-bit machines? It would reduce the load on > hydra significantly if we could drop support for i686, though of course if > people are still relying on it we shouldn't make the change yet. > > ~Shea > ___ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
[Nix-dev] i686 Builds?
Hi all, Do we still have users running 32-bit machines? It would reduce the load on hydra significantly if we could drop support for i686, though of course if people are still relying on it we shouldn't make the change yet. ~Shea ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
