Hello! Christopher Baines <m...@cbaines.net> skribis:
> Christopher Baines <m...@cbaines.net> writes: > >> Is there still a path to bring some of these benefits to users, and if >> so, what things need doing? [...] > Obviously just having the substitutes doesn't magically get them to > users, so I've started looking in to the changes to start making that > happen. Adding the signing key and changing the defaults in a few places > seems like a good step forward [1]. > > 1: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/48435 > > I want to push on with this within the next couple of weeks, mostly so I > can shift focus to Outreachy and the security related tooling work, but > also because I still think this will be a good step forward in terms of > substitute availability for users. It's been over a year now since > implementation started, so it would be good to actually make a positive > difference. I’m fine with distributing an extra signing key alongside that of ci.guix.gnu.org. I’m unsure about having two substitute URLs by default since it adds a bit of overhead, though that overhead is only upon cache misses (I have that setup on my laptop actually). It’s also a one-way change: people are likely to keep the defaults “forever”. So we can’t just “experiment” and change our mind later. That means we should at least have a DNS entry that’s not tied to a particular machine, like ci2.guix.gnu.org or whatever. WDYT? Now, what would be nice is to have a second build farm with the K-out-of-N policy you mention in mind. > There's a few issues still on my mind. Even though the substitute > availability percentages are good when compared to ci.guix.gnu.org, as > bayfront has much less compute power connected, it might not keep up as > well when big sets of changes are merged. I think that's just an > argument for using the build coordinator on berlin and the connected > machines though. As much as I’d have preferred a single solution in this area, fueling competition between the Coordinator and Cuirass and their access to official infrastructure doesn’t seem like a viable path to me. I think the primary value in having a second build farm would be reproducibility and doing away with the single point of failure. Overall substitute coverage probably wouldn’t change much. I agree with Mathieu that maintaining it has a cost, but maybe we can try. I realize I’m asking questions rather than providing answers, which may be because I don’t see a clear path ahead. :-) Thanks! Ludo’.
