upgrade rustwide to reuse build containers for the full build#3325
Merged
Conversation
github-actions
Bot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
1 similar comment
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
syphar
changed the title
GuillaumeGomez
approved these changes
May 16, 2026
github-actions
Bot
added
S-waiting-on-deploy
syphar
removed
the
S-waiting-on-deploy
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
#3334 / rustwide tracing finally gave me some more insight.
In the (~20) builds I checked in detail, the create/delete dance definitely takes some time, but not as much as I hoped. It's perhaps ~10 seconds at most, out of a 60s build. 20s are the exception, mostly when there are multiple targets.
Not nothing, so I still think this is a good idea.
( right now I believe EBS i/o is the bottleneck and increasing the limits there will help more. In the target picture I have we'll have only one builder on each EC2 machine, and scale these, so there we wouldn't have this issue as much as we have it here).