CI caching is not one cache
The article discusses the various caching strategies in continuous integration (CI) environments, emphasizing that the effectiveness of a cache depends on the specific workload and state of the runner. It highlights the advantages of Incredibuild Build Cache for certain scenarios, particularly when dealing with heavy compiler work on fresh runners. The piece also compares native build caches and tool-native caches, suggesting that the best approach varies by programming language and project requirements.
- ▪Incredibuild Build Cache is most effective when the runner starts clean and heavy compiler work is involved.
- ▪Native build caches outperform in scenarios where the same machine retains its build directory and no changes occur.
- ▪The choice of caching strategy should be tailored to the specific workload and ecosystem being used.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
what to use when The honest comparison. The useful question is not "which cache is best?" It is "what got invalidated?" Incredibuild is compelling when compiler work is the expensive part and the runner starts clean. SituationUse firstWhy Fresh C/C++ or Rust runnerIncredibuild Build CacheRestores compiler artifacts into a clean job. Same workspace, no source changesNative build cacheNothing beats a hot local `target/`, `GOCACHE`, or incremental state. Warm workspace, files touchedIncredibuild Build CacheDirty mtimes force native rebuilds; content-identical compiler work can still be reused. Go builds`GOCACHE` + `GOMODCACHE`Go already has the right content-aware cache. Docker image buildsBuildKit cacheLayer reuse is the real accelerator.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Github.
