Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 13:44:49 -0700 From: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> To: Philip Paeps <philip@freebsd.org>, Graham Perrin <grahamperrin@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 504 gateway time-outs Message-ID: <78579d41-41bf-4532-bfce-bf1fa71912d9@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <632811c3-8661-4c07-8267-c9830a0be92b@yahoo.com> References: <d5fd8b56-35cd-4700-8e9b-7767cbb088a6@yahoo.com> <1895ba62-b069-4e28-a910-6c666703ee8e@gmail.com> <5739E595-8A9F-4968-BA58-8D32F9E7E1C1@freebsd.org> <632811c3-8661-4c07-8267-c9830a0be92b@yahoo.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 3/31/26 12:37, Mark Millard wrote: > On 3/31/26 06:25, Philip Paeps wrote: >> On 2026-02-28 19:32:35 (+0800), Graham Perrin wrote: >>> On 28/02/2026 10:32, Mark Millard wrote: >>>> The following got "504 Gateway Time-out" when I tried them: >>>> >>>> <https://pkg-status.freebsd.org/beefy24/build.html?mastername=main- >>>> amd64-default&build=pdf4f957ea181_s178d0b5b8d> >>>> >>>> <https://pkg-status.freebsd.org/beefy23/build.html? >>>> mastername=150amd64-default&build=df4f957ea181> >>> >>> Both somewhat slow to load, however they do load for me. >> >> I only just noticed this thread, sorry for resurrecting it. >> >> I've noticed that beefy23 and beefy24 (2x EPYC 9254, 512G RAM) sometimes >> get too busy building to schedule nginx (or sshd). They eventually >> manage to plough through. Usually. >> >> That causes the 504 timeouts if you're going through pkg-status.f.o. If >> you're going directly to beefyX.chi.freebsd.org you'll just get a timeout. >> >> They're running exactly the same poudriere.conf as the other builders. >> I wonder if our calc_builders() function that tries to assign about 12G >> per builder isn't quite right for this particular configuration of cores >> and RAM. >> >> I haven't had a chance to look closely. As far as I can tell the builds >> do eventually succeed. If the only problem is "I can't obsessively poll >> pkg-status in real time", it's not a very high priority. :) > > It is mostly not having a clue about the distinction between "the > overall build failed somehow, such as by the builder system crashing" > and "you just can not observe anything now but the system is still". > > I was explicitly asked to not send in notes about potential failure > symptoms so I no longer add to the clusteradm workload in such cases. > > [I do wonder if those builders are, over significant times, > page-thrashing or anything else that might suggest mis-tuning to the > point that the overall builds take notably longer. I do expect load > averages generally larger than the FreeBSD count of cpus for keeping > overall elapsed times smaller: otherwise there is likely unused idle > time not put to useful work. But that wording ignores issues like > page-thrashing consequences that can be involved for too much RMA+SWAP > resource intensive activity in parallel if some mutual exclusion of huge > builders is not prevented.] I will say that, for being able to check the build status of specific packages from prior builds that have completed, I'm not a fan that those type of checks are sometimes blocked by "504 timeouts" for unrelated activity. It is more obvious for a bulk run that is in progress. (But that should not establish any significant priority status overall.) [Prompted/reminded by trying to answer a question in a way that involved the status of xfce4-desktop in fairly recently completed builds: I hit the "504" issue and could not check the status of such.] Use of https://portsfallout.com/server related activity does not report on skipped or ignored, only failed. It never indicates that any specific builds actually were completed successfully vs. skipped/ignored. > >> >> This is on my list. It's just a VERY long list. :) > > Yep. > >> >> Philip >> >> > > Thanks for the notes. > -- === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.comhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?78579d41-41bf-4532-bfce-bf1fa71912d9>