11 ms·
Currently x86_64 to aarch64. It's a bootstrapping problem. It takes a lot of infra to run the first build host. We can transition to aarch64 for build hosts if
by motiejus 4y ago
Currently x86_64 to aarch64.
It's a bootstrapping problem. It takes a lot of infra to run the first build host. We can transition to aarch64 for build hosts if we see the need later.
Having cross-compilation makes things much easier from get-go.
- whyohwhywhy 4y agoCan you explain your rationale for moving your infrastructure to an architecture that is both more difficult to procure and more difficult to build for? Surely there is some huge win I'm missing here, so if you have figures showing the math you've done, I'm definitely interested.
- connicpu 4y agoI'm assuming power efficiency would be a big part of it, that tends to be the draw for ARM servers
- rincebrain 4y agoI don't think it's that aarch64 specifically is difficult to build for, it's that adding _any_ additional architecture is a significant upfront amount of work, since you need to set up all the dependent platform-specific things for the first time.
- bri3d 4y agoFor anyone operating exclusively in "the cloud," AWS Graviton2 instances provide a 10-20+% cost reduction for similar performance to the next comparable instance (of course, highly workload dependent), without procurement issues beyond the usual AWS random regional shortages which are generally accounted for at scale already. ARM instances from cloud providers are very appealing to most large-scale enterprise cloud customers, because they represent a significant cost savings at only a moderate upfront investment.