Repository navigation
Request for large-runners on Github CI #45345
Description
Activity
@anonrig the challenge with using GitHub runners in general is that they don't always support the OS versions we need or promise the stability needed to continue to support older Node.js versions. We would need to convince ourselves that for MacOS this is not the case.
Reacted by Tobias NießenFWIW status from me reaching out to GitHub is the same. I can follow up again soon here, but AFAIK they'll need to do some engineering to allow servers to run on accounts with zero balance.
We discussed this in today's Build WG meeting (nodejs/build#3299) but GitHub runners are not really anything the Build WG can help with. I've removed the build-agenda
Issues and PRs to discuss during Build Working Group meetings. label.Usage of large runners is linked to what is available on our organization in GitHub, which is managed by the TSC. I presume #45345 (comment) remains a blocker.
@anonrig given what @bnb said about Github not being able to give us large runners due to due our zero billing I don't have a suggestion.
My comment was that due to the requirements of our build GitHub is not going to be suitable our need to build/test on specific OS versions.
It might be better if you track "achieve goal" X which larger runners being one option for that.
Reacted by Tobias Nießen@MylesBorins would you have a contact that it would make sense to talk to this about?
I'm chasing this down internally.
Reacted by Michaël ZassoThis issue has been marked as stale due to 210 days of inactivity.
It will be automatically closed in 30 days if no further activity occurs. If this is still relevant, please leave a comment or update it to keep it open.This issue has been automatically closed after 30 days of inactivity following its stale status (no activity for a total of 120 days).
If this is still relevant, feel free to reopen it or leave a comment with additional details so we can continue the discussion.
We are currently using Github CI for
test-asan.yml,test-linux.yml,text-macos.ymlwhich uses the latest version on all of the workflows. Linux CI machines have 2 cores and macOS machines has 3 cores by default. Latest PR by @Trott shows that using-j3instead of-j2on macOS builds reduces the build time by 34 minutes (Referencing: #45340).There was a pull request open by @targos to use large runner (#44908) but later closed due to the unavailability due to Github internals (Referencing @bnb's comment: #44908 (comment)). @richardlau opened a different pull request for using large runners for
test-asan(Referencing #45097), but closed it due toGithub's billing system(Referencing: #45097 (comment))Due to the latest issues with macOS machines (referencing: nodejs/build#2917), I'd like to open an issue to keep track of the process of requesting and getting access to large runners on Github. Even though the issue with the macOS builds is not related to the GitHub machines, it might be good to rely more on Github hosts and less on the Jenkins hosts for macOS, maybe with the possibility of removing them entirely.
Even though I don't know what is the correct spec for the node.js builds, afaik the larger the core size, the faster the builds are done. Therefore I believe that getting access to 64 cores of large runners is appropriate for us. (For the full list: https://github.com/proxy/docs.github.com/en/actions/using-github-hosted-runners/using-larger-runners)
cc @nodejs/tsc