Posts Tagged ‘soyuz’

Beta test: new package picker

Tuesday, September 20th, 2016

If you are a member of Launchpad’s beta testers team, you’ll now have a slightly different interface for selecting source packages in the Launchpad web interface, and we’d like to know if it goes wrong for you.

One of our longer-standing bugs has been #42298 (“package picker lists unpublished (invalid) packages”).  When selecting a package – for example, when filing a bug against Ubuntu, or if you select “Also affects distribution/package” on a bug – and using the “Choose…” link to pop up a picker widget, the resulting package picker has historically offered all possible source package names (or sometimes all possible source and binary package names) that Launchpad knows about, without much regard for whether they make sense in context.  For example, packages that were removed in Ubuntu 5.10, or packages that only exists in Debian, would be offered in search results, and to make matters worse search results were often ordered alphabetically by name rather than by relevance.  There was some work on this problem back in 2011 or so, but it suffered from performance problems and was never widely enabled.

We’ve now resurrected that work from 2011, fixed the performance problems, and converted all relevant views to use it.  You should now see something like this:

New package picker, showing search results for "pass"

Exact matches on either source or binary package names always come first, and we try to order other matches in a reasonable way as well.  The disclosure triangles alongside each package allow you to check for more details before you make a selection.

Please report any bugs you find with this new feature.  If all goes well, we’ll enable this for all users soon.

Update: as of 2016-09-22, this feature is enabled for all Launchpad users.

PPAs for ppc64el

Tuesday, October 27th, 2015

Personal package archives on Launchpad only build for the amd64 and i386 architectures by default, which meets most people’s needs.  Anyone with an e-mail address can have a PPA, so they have to be securely virtualised, but that’s been feasible on x86 for a long time.  Dealing with the other architectures that Ubuntu supports (currently arm64, armhf, powerpc, and ppc64el) in a robust and scalable way has been harder.  Until recently, all of those architectures were handled either by running one builder per machine on bare metal, or in some cases by running builders on a small number of manually-maintained persistent virtual machines per physical machine.  Neither of those approaches scales to the level required to support PPAs, and we need to make sure that any malicious code run by a given build is strictly confined to that build.  (We support virtualised armhf PPAs, but only by using qemu-user-static in an amd64 virtual machine, which is very fragile and there are many builds that it simply can’t handle at all.)

We’ve been working with our sysadmins for several months to extend ScalingStack to non-x86 architectures, and at the start of Ubuntu’s 16.04 development cycle we were finally able to switch all ppc64el builds over to this system.  Rather than four builders, we now have 30, each of which is reset to a clean virtual machine instance between each build.  Since that’s more than enough to support Ubuntu’s needs, we’ve now “unrestricted” the architecture so that it can be used for PPAs as well, and PPA owners can enable it at will.  To do this, visit the main web page for your PPA (which will look something like “<person-name>/+archive/ubuntu/<ppa-name>”) and follow the “Change details” link; you’ll see a list of checkboxes under “Processors”, and you can enable or disable any that aren’t greyed out.  This also means that you can disable amd64 or i386 builds for your PPA if you want to.

We’re working to extend this to all the existing Ubuntu architectures at the moment.  arm64 is up and running but we’re still making sure it’s sufficiently robust; armhf will run on arm64 guests, and just needs a kernel patch to set its uname correctly; and powerpc builds will run in different guests on the same POWER8 compute nodes as ppc64el once we have suitable cloud images available.  We’ll post further announcements when further architectures are unrestricted.

Launchpad build farm improvements

Monday, September 2nd, 2013

We’ve made a number of improvements to the Launchpad build farm in the last month, with the aim of improving its performance and robustness.  This sort of work is usually invisible to users except when something goes wrong, so we thought it would be worth taking some time to give you a summary.  Some of this work was on the Launchpad software itself, while some was on the hardware.

(To understand some of the rest of this post, it’s useful to be aware of the distinction between virtualised and devirtualised builders in Launchpad.  Virtualised builders are used for most PPAs: they build untrusted code in a Xen guest which is initialised from scratch at the start of each build, and are only available for i386, amd64, and a small number of ARM builds by way of user-mode QEMU.  Devirtualised builders run on ordinary hardware with less strict containment, and are used for Ubuntu distribution builds and a few specialised PPAs.)

ARM builders have been a headache for some time.  For our devirtualised builders, we were using a farm of PandaBoards, having previously used BeagleBoards and Babbage boards.  These largely did the job, but they’re really a development board rather than server-class hardware, and it showed in places: disk performance wasn’t up to our needs and we saw build failures due to data corruption much more frequently than we were comfortable with.  We recently installed a cluster of Calxeda Highbank nodes, which have been performing much more reliably.

It has long been possible to cancel builds on virtualised builders: this is easy because we can just reset the guest.  However, it was never possible to cancel builds on devirtualised builders: killing the top-level build process isn’t sufficient for builds that are stuck in various creative ways, and you need to make sure to go round and repeatedly kill all processes in the build chroot until they’ve all gone away.  We’ve now hooked this up properly, and it is possible for build daemon maintainers to cancel builds on devirtualised builders without operator assistance, which should eliminate situations where we need urgent builds to jump the queue but can’t because all builders are occupied by long-running builds.  (People with upload privileges can currently cancel builds too, which is intended mainly to allow cancelling your own builds; please don’t abuse this or we may need to tighten up the permissions.)  As a bonus, cancelling a build no longer loses the build log.

Finally, we have been putting quite a bit of work into build farm reliability.  A few problems have led to excessively long queues on virtual builders:

  • Builders hung for some time when they should have timed out, due to a recent change in su; this is now fixed in the affected Ubuntu series.
  • Xen guests often fail to restore for one reason or another, and when this happened builders would fail in ways that required an operator to fix.  We had been dealing with this by having our operators do semi-automatic builder fixing runs a few times a day, but in recent months the frequency of failures has been difficult to keep up with in this way, especially at the weekend.  Some of this is probably related to our current use of a rather old version of Xen, but the builder management code in Launchpad could also handle this much better by trying to reset the guest again in the same way that we do at the start of each build.  As of this morning’s code deployment, we now do this, and the build farm seems to be holding up much more robustly.

This should make things better for everyone, but we aren’t planning to stop here.  We’re intending to convert the virtual builders to an OpenStack deployment, which should allow us to scale them much more flexibly.  We plan to take advantage of more reliable build cancellation to automatically cancel in-progress builds that have been superseded by new source uploads, so that we don’t spend resources on builds that will be rejected on upload.  And we plan to move Ubuntu live file system building into Launchpad so that we can consolidate those two build farms and make better use of our available hardware.

Daily builds of huge trees

Thursday, November 10th, 2011

We’ve just upgraded Launchpad’s builder machines to Bazaar 2.4. Most importantly, this means that recipe builds of very large trees will work reliably, such as the daily builds of the Linaro ARM-optimized gcc. (This was bug 746822 in Launchpad).

We are going to do some further rollouts over the next week to improve supportability of recipe builds, support building non-native packages, handle muiltiarch package dependencies, improve the buildd deployment story etc.

“Failed to fetch” errors for PPAs …

Friday, February 18th, 2011

You may start getting “Failed to fetch” error messages when updating your software sources (e.g. through “apt-get update” or “Reload package information” in Synaptic), which may be due to a bug we’ve just cleaned up in Launchpad’s PPAs.

The error looks like this:

  W: Failed to fetch
  Unable to find expected entry  restricted/binary-i386/Packages in Meta-index file (malformed Release file?)

  E: Some index files failed to download, they have been ignored, or old ones used instead.