Request for large-runners on Github CI

[anonrig]

We are currently using Github CI for test-asan.yml, test-linux.yml, text-macos.yml which 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 -j3 instead of -j2 on 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 to Github'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://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-github-hosted-runners/using-larger-runners)

cc @nodejs/tsc

[mhdawson]

@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.

[anonrig]

@mhdawson Replacing existing GitHub workflow runners with large ones will also be beneficial for contributors.

[bnb]

FWIW 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.

[richardlau]

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 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]

@mhdawson What are the next steps? What do you recommend?

[mhdawson]

@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.

[anonrig]

Can we escalate this to OpenJS Foundation CPC? @mhdawson @Trott

[mhdawson]

@MylesBorins would you have a contact that it would make sense to talk to this about?

[Trott]

@rginn We're trying to figure out how we might get access to GitHub's larger runners for actions. Is this something the Foundation can help with? Should I bring it to the CPC? Both? Neither?

[MylesBorins]

I'm chasing this down internally.