You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mxnet.apache.org by "Zhao, Patric" <pa...@intel.com> on 2019/08/15 05:02:55 UTC
new website (RE: CI and PRs)
Hi Aaron,
Recently, we are working on improving the documents of CPU backend based on the current website.
I saw there're several PRs to update the new website and it's really great.
Thus, I'd like to know when the new website will online.
If it's very near, we will switch our works to the new website.
Thanks,
--Patric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 11:40 AM
> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: CI and PRs
>
> The PRs Thomas and I are working on for the new docs and website share
> the mxnet binary in the new CI pipelines we made. Speeds things up a lot.
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 18:16 Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I see it done daily now, and while I can’t share all the details, it’s
> > not an incredibly complex thing, and involves not much more than
> > nfs/efs sharing and remote ssh commands. All it takes is a little
> > ingenuity and some imagination.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:31 PM Pedro Larroy
> > <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds good in theory. I think there are complex details with
> > > regards of resource sharing during parallel execution. Still I think
> > > both ways can
> > be
> > > explored. I think some tests run for unreasonably long times for
> > > what
> > they
> > > are doing. We already scale parts of the pipeline horizontally
> > > across workers.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:12 PM Chris Olivier
> > > <cj...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Rather than remove tests (which doesn’t scale as a solution), why
> > > > not
> > > scale
> > > > them horizontally so that they finish more quickly? Across
> > > > processes or even on a pool of machines that aren’t necessarily the
> build machine?
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:03 PM Marco de Abreu <
> > marco.g.abreu@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > With regards to time I rather prefer us spending a bit more time
> > > > > on maintenance than somebody running into an error that could've
> > > > > been
> > > caught
> > > > > with a test.
> > > > >
> > > > > I mean, our Publishing pipeline for Scala GPU has been broken
> > > > > for
> > quite
> > > > > some time now, but nobody noticed that. Basically my stance on
> > > > > that
> > > > matter
> > > > > is that as soon as something is not blocking, you can also just
> > > > deactivate
> > > > > it since you don't have a forcing function in an open source project.
> > > > > People will rarely come back and fix the errors of some nightly
> > > > > test
> > > that
> > > > > they introduced.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Marco
> > > > >
> > > > > Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 14. Aug.
> > > > > 2019,
> > > 21:59:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If a language binding test is failing for a not important
> > > > > > reason,
> > > then
> > > > it
> > > > > > is too brittle and needs to be fixed (we have fixed some of
> > > > > > these
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > Clojure package [1]).
> > > > > > But in general, if we thinking of the MXNet project as one
> > > > > > project
> > > that
> > > > > is
> > > > > > across all the language bindings, then we want to know if some
> > > > > fundamental
> > > > > > code change is going to break a downstream package.
> > > > > > I can't speak for all the high level package binding
> > > > > > maintainers,
> > but
> > > > I'm
> > > > > > always happy to pitch in to provide code fixes to help the
> > > > > > base PR
> > > get
> > > > > > green.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The time costs to maintain such a large CI project obviously
> > > > > > needs
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > considered as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15579
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:48 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > From what I have seen Clojure is 15 minutes, which I think
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > The only question is that when a binding such as R, Perl or
> > Clojure
> > > > > > fails,
> > > > > > > some devs are a bit confused about how to fix them since
> > > > > > > they are
> > > not
> > > > > > > familiar with the testing tools and the language.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:57 AM Carin Meier <
> > carinmeier@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Great idea Marco! Anything that you think would be
> > > > > > > > valuable to
> > > > share
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > be good. The duration of each node in the test stage
> > > > > > > > sounds
> > like
> > > a
> > > > > good
> > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - Carin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 2:48 PM Marco de Abreu <
> > > > > > marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > we record a bunch of metrics about run statistics (down
> > > > > > > > > to
> > the
> > > > > > duration
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > every individual step). If you tell me which ones you're
> > > > > particularly
> > > > > > > > > interested in (probably total duration of each node in
> > > > > > > > > the
> > test
> > > > > > stage),
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > happy to provide them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dimensions are (in hierarchical order):
> > > > > > > > > - job
> > > > > > > > > - branch
> > > > > > > > > - stage
> > > > > > > > > - node
> > > > > > > > > - step
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I don't have the possibility to export
> > > > > > > > > them
> > since
> > > > we
> > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > them in CloudWatch Metrics which afaik doesn't offer raw
> > > exports.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > Marco
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 14. Aug.
> > > > 2019,
> > > > > > > 19:43:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I would prefer to keep the language binding in the PR
> > > process.
> > > > > > > Perhaps
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > could do some analytics to see how much each of the
> > language
> > > > > > bindings
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > contributing to overall run time.
> > > > > > > > > > If we have some metrics on that, maybe we can come up
> > > > > > > > > > with
> > a
> > > > > > > guideline
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > how much time each should take. Another possibility is
> > > leverage
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > parallel builds more.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:30 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carin.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > That's a good point, all things considered would
> > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > preference
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > the Clojure tests as part of the PR process or in
> > Nightly?
> > > > > > > > > > > Some options are having notifications here or in slack.
> > But
> > > > if
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > breakages would go unnoticed maybe is not a good
> > > > > > > > > > > idea to
> > > > fully
> > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > bindings from the PR process and just streamline the
> > > process.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:09 AM Carin Meier <
> > > > > > carinmeier@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Before any binding tests are moved to nightly, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > we
> > > > > need
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > out how the community can get proper notifications
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > failure
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > success
> > > > > > > > > > > > on those nightly runs. Otherwise, I think that
> > breakages
> > > > > would
> > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > unnoticed.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -Carin
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:47 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > > > > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems we are hitting some problems in CI. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > propose
> > the
> > > > > > > following
> > > > > > > > > > > action
> > > > > > > > > > > > > items to remedy the situation and accelerate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > turn
> > > around
> > > > > > times
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > CI,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reduce cost, complexity and probability of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > blocking
> > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > frustrating developers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * Upgrade Windows visual studio from VS 2015 to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > VS
> > > 2017.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > build_windows.py infrastructure should easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > version.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently some PRs are blocked by this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13958
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * Move Gluon Model zoo tests to nightly. Tracked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/15295
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * Move non-python bindings tests to nightly. If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > commit
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > touching
> > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > bindings, the reviewer should ask for a full run
> > which
> > > > can
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > > > > > > locally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > use the label bot to trigger a full CI build, or
> > defer
> > > to
> > > > > > > > nightly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * Provide a couple of basic sanity performance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > on
> > > > > small
> > > > > > > > > models
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are run on CI and can be echoed by the label bot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as a
> > > > > comment
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * Address unit tests that take more than 10-20s,
> > > > streamline
> > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > move
> > > > > > > > > > > > > them to nightly if it can't be done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * Open sourcing the remaining CI infrastructure
> > scripts
> > > > so
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can contribute.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think our goal should be turnaround under 30min.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I would also like to touch base with the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > that
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > being followed up by committers asking for changes.
> > For
> > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > importtant and is hanging for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 5051
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is another, less important but more trivial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > review:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 4940
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think comitters requesting changes and not
> > folllowing
> > > > up
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > time is not healthy for the project. I suggest
> > > > configuring
> > > > > > > github
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Notifications for a good SNR and following up.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
Re: new website (RE: CI and PRs)
Posted by Marco de Abreu <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi Aaron,
wrt the Dockerfile situation. What you are saying is right, but my proposal
is the following:
Instead of having a fat Dockerfile like
---
FROM ubuntu:16
RUN apt update
...
---
You instead run that fat Dockerfile locally on your laptop and push it to
"aaronmarkham:elephantmaster9000"
Then, you update the above Dockerfile to the following:
---
FROM aaronmarkham:elephantmaster9000
---
Now, it will only download the prebuilt Dockerfile from your own repo. Of
course, this is just a temporary solution to allow fast iteration, but it
greatly speeds up your development. Once you're done with developing and
the PR is no longer WIP, you copy the fat Dockerfile content back and
remove the reference to your own repo.
Wrt the website. What's the issue with going to
http://jenkins.mxnet-ci.amazon-ml.com/job/mxnet-validation/job/clang/job/mkldnn-v1.0/
(as
an example) and triggering the job? Jenkins will automatically make sure
that it checks out the appropriate branch etc. A job is always scoped to a
single git-commit. Thus, if you're trying to build multiple versions, you
trigger each job individually. If you need some kind of parent-job, you
kick off the parent-job that does it's stuff, kicks off all the branch-jobs
and then continues with its flow to consume whatever the branch-jobs
created. I hope I described it in an understandable fashion.
The dev account doesn't have access to S3. It's purposefully restricted
since it's non-productive system where we don't audit access that closely
and thus try to reduce the blast radius by limiting slave permissions.
Sheng is owning the S3 bucket.
I'm not sure about the SCM stuff, but lets chat offline about it since it
seems to be a more complicated issue.
-Marco
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:32 PM Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> For stash vs archive, maybe we need to look into attached storage
> options and combine some deployments, so that artifacts get stored in
> an accessible way. I notice sometimes the web portal for Jenkins
> becomes unresponsive. If disk space is causing this, we need to
> address it.
>
> For the Dockerfile situation, build.py is hardcoded to use mxnet-ci
> and tags that start with "build" in the name, like
> mxnet-ci:build.Dockerfile.xxxx. This would need to be changed to
> support developer supplied alternatives. While this should be an
> option, I really do think that when we do a release, we should create
> a stable Docker image that has the deps all pre-installed, and then go
> with that until the next release.
>
> For the version thing, I want to have the option to trigger the docs
> and/or website build using a specified branch. I accomplish this now
> by using the settings.ini file, but in the new flow, the docs builds
> are orchestrated with Docker/CI and not by Sphinx. This makes it
> easier to manage, but now I lost my versioning capability where I
> could build any one or all versions of all docs. I'll downplay this
> though. We really don't need to do that much anymore with how the new
> site is constructed. This is more of a wish list item.
> For S3, I get access denied when running tests on CI dev. We need the
> secrets/config ported over so I don't have to run tests on prod. Plus,
> it would be good to note in the Wiki what account has the bucket, how
> to ask for access, and so forth.
>
> Related to S3 and apache-site publishing - I see Maven has some
> configuration for secrets in Jenkins, but we don't have this for
> apache-site or S3. A consistent way to manage this would be good.
> Publishing the website uses username/password that are added to
> jenkins. When I tried to break out some of the logic to SCM, jenkins
> would blast out my fork username and do other fun security stuff that
> broke the scripts. Obviously, I wasn't doing it the way it wants me to
> do it.
>
> Cheers,
> Aaron
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:08 PM Marco de Abreu <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > thanks a lot for these great notes! I'm happy to give my comments about
> > them :)
> >
> > * Archiving is *very VERY* bad for the CI master performance. It floods
> the
> > disk with data since archiving persists the data. We are now at the point
> > where we technically can't extend the volume any further (we exceeded the
> > 4TB limit and had to delete old runs). Thus, stashing is the only option
> > that's not harmful to the systems performance.
> >
> > * Yeah, agree. One way is to build a Dockerfile, push it to your own
> > Dockerhub account and then in the MXNet DOckerfile just make "FROM
> > yourdockerhub:blabla".
> >
> > * We support the GitHub Multi-Branch Pipeline and basically use this
> across
> > all jobs. So adhering to that system will result in the git repository
> > within the workspace being scoped to the correct branch. As a rule of
> thumb
> > it's basically a red flag as soon as you call anything with regards to
> git
> > (e.g. checking out a different branch, creating a commit, merging another
> > branch, etc) within your payload. Happy to help if you would like to have
> > that elaborated.
> >
> > * Could you elaborate on "Publishing scripts seem to need a security
> > refactor, or we don't bother offering stand-alone access to them; running
> > local versus on Jenkins."? I don't really understand what you mean here.
> >
> > * Basically it's an s3 bucket with a TTL of 30 days that our CI slaves
> have
> > permission to push to. We basically just upload the entire folder that is
> > being created. Is there anything specifically you're looking for?
> >
> > * That's awesome!
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Marco
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:52 PM Aaron Markham <aaron.s.markham@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I'll start a different thread about the website. Sure, there's a lot
> > > of overlap with CI. I learned a lot in the last few weeks having to
> > > iterate on 7 different docs packages and trying to streamline the
> > > build process in CI.
> > >
> > > Here are my notes:
> > >
> > > * Stash operations vs. archiving - recommendations in the docs suggest
> > > that large artifacts should be archived; stash is super slow; archived
> > > artifacts seems to be faster and can be used between pipelines. This
> > > is helpful for the MXNet binary and for the Scala package, both of
> > > which are used by various other docs packages. However, there's an
> > > implication with the master server. Archived artifacts are stored
> > > there, so if the pipeline is related to PR validation, this would be
> > > unwieldy. If related to publishing final artifacts for specific
> > > versions, well, that's probably ok.
> > >
> > > * It seems that efficiency in development and testing can be gained by
> > > checkpointing the docker containers after the dependencies are
> > > installed. I can't stress how much time is lost while watching
> > > `apt-get update` run for the millionth time when testing new CI
> > > routines. It sort of makes me crazy(er).
> > >
> > > * A version/branch parameter would be useful for the Jenkins pipelines
> > > for generating docs artifacts from different branches.
> > >
> > > * Publishing scripts seem to need a security refactor, or we don't
> > > bother offering stand-alone access to them; running local versus on
> > > Jenkins.
> > >
> > > * I don't see any documentation on the S3 publishing steps and how to
> test
> > > this.
> > >
> > > * After breaking out each docs package in its own pipeline, I see
> > > opportunities to use the GitHub API to check the PR payload and be
> > > selective about what tests to run.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:03 PM Zhao, Patric <pa...@intel.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Aaron,
> > > >
> > > > Recently, we are working on improving the documents of CPU backend
> based
> > > on the current website.
> > > >
> > > > I saw there're several PRs to update the new website and it's really
> > > great.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, I'd like to know when the new website will online.
> > > > If it's very near, we will switch our works to the new website.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > --Patric
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 11:40 AM
> > > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: CI and PRs
> > > > >
> > > > > The PRs Thomas and I are working on for the new docs and website
> share
> > > > > the mxnet binary in the new CI pipelines we made. Speeds things up
> a
> > > lot.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 18:16 Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I see it done daily now, and while I can’t share all the details,
> > > it’s
> > > > > > not an incredibly complex thing, and involves not much more than
> > > > > > nfs/efs sharing and remote ssh commands. All it takes is a
> little
> > > > > > ingenuity and some imagination.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:31 PM Pedro Larroy
> > > > > > <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sounds good in theory. I think there are complex details with
> > > > > > > regards of resource sharing during parallel execution. Still I
> > > think
> > > > > > > both ways can
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > explored. I think some tests run for unreasonably long times
> for
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > are doing. We already scale parts of the pipeline horizontally
> > > > > > > across workers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:12 PM Chris Olivier
> > > > > > > <cj...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Rather than remove tests (which doesn’t scale as a
> solution), why
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > scale
> > > > > > > > them horizontally so that they finish more quickly? Across
> > > > > > > > processes or even on a pool of machines that aren’t
> necessarily
> > > the
> > > > > build machine?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:03 PM Marco de Abreu <
> > > > > > marco.g.abreu@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > With regards to time I rather prefer us spending a bit more
> > > time
> > > > > > > > > on maintenance than somebody running into an error that
> > > could've
> > > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > caught
> > > > > > > > > with a test.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I mean, our Publishing pipeline for Scala GPU has been
> broken
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > some time now, but nobody noticed that. Basically my
> stance on
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > matter
> > > > > > > > > is that as soon as something is not blocking, you can also
> just
> > > > > > > > deactivate
> > > > > > > > > it since you don't have a forcing function in an open
> source
> > > project.
> > > > > > > > > People will rarely come back and fix the errors of some
> nightly
> > > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > they introduced.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -Marco
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 14.
> Aug.
> > > > > > > > > 2019,
> > > > > > > 21:59:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If a language binding test is failing for a not important
> > > > > > > > > > reason,
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > is too brittle and needs to be fixed (we have fixed some
> of
> > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Clojure package [1]).
> > > > > > > > > > But in general, if we thinking of the MXNet project as
> one
> > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > across all the language bindings, then we want to know if
> > > some
> > > > > > > > > fundamental
> > > > > > > > > > code change is going to break a downstream package.
> > > > > > > > > > I can't speak for all the high level package binding
> > > > > > > > > > maintainers,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > always happy to pitch in to provide code fixes to help
> the
> > > > > > > > > > base PR
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > green.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The time costs to maintain such a large CI project
> obviously
> > > > > > > > > > needs
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > considered as well.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15579
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:48 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > From what I have seen Clojure is 15 minutes, which I
> think
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > > The only question is that when a binding such as R,
> Perl or
> > > > > > Clojure
> > > > > > > > > > fails,
> > > > > > > > > > > some devs are a bit confused about how to fix them
> since
> > > > > > > > > > > they are
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > familiar with the testing tools and the language.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:57 AM Carin Meier <
> > > > > > carinmeier@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Great idea Marco! Anything that you think would be
> > > > > > > > > > > > valuable to
> > > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > be good. The duration of each node in the test stage
> > > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > - Carin
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 2:48 PM Marco de Abreu <
> > > > > > > > > > marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we record a bunch of metrics about run statistics
> (down
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > duration
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > every individual step). If you tell me which ones
> > > you're
> > > > > > > > > particularly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > interested in (probably total duration of each
> node in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > > stage),
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > happy to provide them.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dimensions are (in hierarchical order):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - job
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - branch
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - stage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - node
> > > > > > > > > > > > > - step
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I don't have the possibility to
> export
> > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > > them in CloudWatch Metrics which afaik doesn't
> offer
> > > raw
> > > > > > > exports.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Marco
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi.,
> > > 14. Aug.
> > > > > > > > 2019,
> > > > > > > > > > > 19:43:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer to keep the language binding in
> the PR
> > > > > > > process.
> > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps
> > > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > could do some analytics to see how much each of
> the
> > > > > > language
> > > > > > > > > > bindings
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributing to overall run time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we have some metrics on that, maybe we can
> come up
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > guideline
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > how much time each should take. Another
> possibility
> > > is
> > > > > > > leverage
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > parallel builds more.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:30 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carin.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a good point, all things considered
> would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > preference
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Clojure tests as part of the PR process or
> in
> > > > > > Nightly?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some options are having notifications here or
> in
> > > slack.
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > breakages would go unnoticed maybe is not a
> good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea to
> > > > > > > > fully
> > > > > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bindings from the PR process and just
> streamline
> > > the
> > > > > > > process.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:09 AM Carin Meier <
> > > > > > > > > > carinmeier@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before any binding tests are moved to
> nightly, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out how the community can get proper
> > > notifications
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > success
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on those nightly runs. Otherwise, I think
> that
> > > > > > breakages
> > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unnoticed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Carin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:47 PM Pedro Larroy
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems we are hitting some problems in CI. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > propose
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > following
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > action
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > items to remedy the situation and
> accelerate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > turn
> > > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > > > times
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > CI,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reduce cost, complexity and probability of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > blocking
> > > > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > frustrating developers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Upgrade Windows visual studio from VS
> 2015 to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VS
> > > > > > > 2017.
> > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > build_windows.py infrastructure should
> easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently some PRs are blocked by this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13958
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Move Gluon Model zoo tests to nightly.
> > > Tracked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/15295
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Move non-python bindings tests to
> nightly. If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > touching
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bindings, the reviewer should ask for a
> full
> > > run
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > locally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use the label bot to trigger a full CI
> build,
> > > or
> > > > > > defer
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > nightly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Provide a couple of basic sanity
> performance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > small
> > > > > > > > > > > > > models
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are run on CI and can be echoed by the
> label
> > > bot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > > comment
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Address unit tests that take more than
> > > 10-20s,
> > > > > > > > streamline
> > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > move
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them to nightly if it can't be done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Open sourcing the remaining CI
> infrastructure
> > > > > > scripts
> > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can contribute.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think our goal should be turnaround under
> > > 30min.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would also like to touch base with the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being followed up by committers asking for
> > > changes.
> > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > importtant and is hanging for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5051
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is another, less important but more
> > > trivial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > review:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4940
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think comitters requesting changes and
> not
> > > > > > folllowing
> > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is not healthy for the project. I
> suggest
> > > > > > > > configuring
> > > > > > > > > > > github
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notifications for a good SNR and following
> up.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > >
>
Re: new website (RE: CI and PRs)
Posted by Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>.
For stash vs archive, maybe we need to look into attached storage
options and combine some deployments, so that artifacts get stored in
an accessible way. I notice sometimes the web portal for Jenkins
becomes unresponsive. If disk space is causing this, we need to
address it.
For the Dockerfile situation, build.py is hardcoded to use mxnet-ci
and tags that start with "build" in the name, like
mxnet-ci:build.Dockerfile.xxxx. This would need to be changed to
support developer supplied alternatives. While this should be an
option, I really do think that when we do a release, we should create
a stable Docker image that has the deps all pre-installed, and then go
with that until the next release.
For the version thing, I want to have the option to trigger the docs
and/or website build using a specified branch. I accomplish this now
by using the settings.ini file, but in the new flow, the docs builds
are orchestrated with Docker/CI and not by Sphinx. This makes it
easier to manage, but now I lost my versioning capability where I
could build any one or all versions of all docs. I'll downplay this
though. We really don't need to do that much anymore with how the new
site is constructed. This is more of a wish list item.
For S3, I get access denied when running tests on CI dev. We need the
secrets/config ported over so I don't have to run tests on prod. Plus,
it would be good to note in the Wiki what account has the bucket, how
to ask for access, and so forth.
Related to S3 and apache-site publishing - I see Maven has some
configuration for secrets in Jenkins, but we don't have this for
apache-site or S3. A consistent way to manage this would be good.
Publishing the website uses username/password that are added to
jenkins. When I tried to break out some of the logic to SCM, jenkins
would blast out my fork username and do other fun security stuff that
broke the scripts. Obviously, I wasn't doing it the way it wants me to
do it.
Cheers,
Aaron
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 12:08 PM Marco de Abreu <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> thanks a lot for these great notes! I'm happy to give my comments about
> them :)
>
> * Archiving is *very VERY* bad for the CI master performance. It floods the
> disk with data since archiving persists the data. We are now at the point
> where we technically can't extend the volume any further (we exceeded the
> 4TB limit and had to delete old runs). Thus, stashing is the only option
> that's not harmful to the systems performance.
>
> * Yeah, agree. One way is to build a Dockerfile, push it to your own
> Dockerhub account and then in the MXNet DOckerfile just make "FROM
> yourdockerhub:blabla".
>
> * We support the GitHub Multi-Branch Pipeline and basically use this across
> all jobs. So adhering to that system will result in the git repository
> within the workspace being scoped to the correct branch. As a rule of thumb
> it's basically a red flag as soon as you call anything with regards to git
> (e.g. checking out a different branch, creating a commit, merging another
> branch, etc) within your payload. Happy to help if you would like to have
> that elaborated.
>
> * Could you elaborate on "Publishing scripts seem to need a security
> refactor, or we don't bother offering stand-alone access to them; running
> local versus on Jenkins."? I don't really understand what you mean here.
>
> * Basically it's an s3 bucket with a TTL of 30 days that our CI slaves have
> permission to push to. We basically just upload the entire folder that is
> being created. Is there anything specifically you're looking for?
>
> * That's awesome!
>
> Best regards,
> Marco
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:52 PM Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I'll start a different thread about the website. Sure, there's a lot
> > of overlap with CI. I learned a lot in the last few weeks having to
> > iterate on 7 different docs packages and trying to streamline the
> > build process in CI.
> >
> > Here are my notes:
> >
> > * Stash operations vs. archiving - recommendations in the docs suggest
> > that large artifacts should be archived; stash is super slow; archived
> > artifacts seems to be faster and can be used between pipelines. This
> > is helpful for the MXNet binary and for the Scala package, both of
> > which are used by various other docs packages. However, there's an
> > implication with the master server. Archived artifacts are stored
> > there, so if the pipeline is related to PR validation, this would be
> > unwieldy. If related to publishing final artifacts for specific
> > versions, well, that's probably ok.
> >
> > * It seems that efficiency in development and testing can be gained by
> > checkpointing the docker containers after the dependencies are
> > installed. I can't stress how much time is lost while watching
> > `apt-get update` run for the millionth time when testing new CI
> > routines. It sort of makes me crazy(er).
> >
> > * A version/branch parameter would be useful for the Jenkins pipelines
> > for generating docs artifacts from different branches.
> >
> > * Publishing scripts seem to need a security refactor, or we don't
> > bother offering stand-alone access to them; running local versus on
> > Jenkins.
> >
> > * I don't see any documentation on the S3 publishing steps and how to test
> > this.
> >
> > * After breaking out each docs package in its own pipeline, I see
> > opportunities to use the GitHub API to check the PR payload and be
> > selective about what tests to run.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:03 PM Zhao, Patric <pa...@intel.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Aaron,
> > >
> > > Recently, we are working on improving the documents of CPU backend based
> > on the current website.
> > >
> > > I saw there're several PRs to update the new website and it's really
> > great.
> > >
> > > Thus, I'd like to know when the new website will online.
> > > If it's very near, we will switch our works to the new website.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > --Patric
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 11:40 AM
> > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: CI and PRs
> > > >
> > > > The PRs Thomas and I are working on for the new docs and website share
> > > > the mxnet binary in the new CI pipelines we made. Speeds things up a
> > lot.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 18:16 Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I see it done daily now, and while I can’t share all the details,
> > it’s
> > > > > not an incredibly complex thing, and involves not much more than
> > > > > nfs/efs sharing and remote ssh commands. All it takes is a little
> > > > > ingenuity and some imagination.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:31 PM Pedro Larroy
> > > > > <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds good in theory. I think there are complex details with
> > > > > > regards of resource sharing during parallel execution. Still I
> > think
> > > > > > both ways can
> > > > > be
> > > > > > explored. I think some tests run for unreasonably long times for
> > > > > > what
> > > > > they
> > > > > > are doing. We already scale parts of the pipeline horizontally
> > > > > > across workers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:12 PM Chris Olivier
> > > > > > <cj...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rather than remove tests (which doesn’t scale as a solution), why
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > scale
> > > > > > > them horizontally so that they finish more quickly? Across
> > > > > > > processes or even on a pool of machines that aren’t necessarily
> > the
> > > > build machine?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:03 PM Marco de Abreu <
> > > > > marco.g.abreu@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > With regards to time I rather prefer us spending a bit more
> > time
> > > > > > > > on maintenance than somebody running into an error that
> > could've
> > > > > > > > been
> > > > > > caught
> > > > > > > > with a test.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I mean, our Publishing pipeline for Scala GPU has been broken
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > some time now, but nobody noticed that. Basically my stance on
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > matter
> > > > > > > > is that as soon as something is not blocking, you can also just
> > > > > > > deactivate
> > > > > > > > it since you don't have a forcing function in an open source
> > project.
> > > > > > > > People will rarely come back and fix the errors of some nightly
> > > > > > > > test
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > they introduced.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -Marco
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 14. Aug.
> > > > > > > > 2019,
> > > > > > 21:59:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If a language binding test is failing for a not important
> > > > > > > > > reason,
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > is too brittle and needs to be fixed (we have fixed some of
> > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Clojure package [1]).
> > > > > > > > > But in general, if we thinking of the MXNet project as one
> > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > across all the language bindings, then we want to know if
> > some
> > > > > > > > fundamental
> > > > > > > > > code change is going to break a downstream package.
> > > > > > > > > I can't speak for all the high level package binding
> > > > > > > > > maintainers,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > always happy to pitch in to provide code fixes to help the
> > > > > > > > > base PR
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > green.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The time costs to maintain such a large CI project obviously
> > > > > > > > > needs
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > considered as well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15579
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:48 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > From what I have seen Clojure is 15 minutes, which I think
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > > The only question is that when a binding such as R, Perl or
> > > > > Clojure
> > > > > > > > > fails,
> > > > > > > > > > some devs are a bit confused about how to fix them since
> > > > > > > > > > they are
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > familiar with the testing tools and the language.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:57 AM Carin Meier <
> > > > > carinmeier@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Great idea Marco! Anything that you think would be
> > > > > > > > > > > valuable to
> > > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > be good. The duration of each node in the test stage
> > > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > like
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > - Carin
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 2:48 PM Marco de Abreu <
> > > > > > > > > marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > we record a bunch of metrics about run statistics (down
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > duration
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > every individual step). If you tell me which ones
> > you're
> > > > > > > > particularly
> > > > > > > > > > > > interested in (probably total duration of each node in
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > test
> > > > > > > > > stage),
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > > happy to provide them.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dimensions are (in hierarchical order):
> > > > > > > > > > > > - job
> > > > > > > > > > > > - branch
> > > > > > > > > > > > - stage
> > > > > > > > > > > > - node
> > > > > > > > > > > > - step
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I don't have the possibility to export
> > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > since
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > > them in CloudWatch Metrics which afaik doesn't offer
> > raw
> > > > > > exports.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Marco
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi.,
> > 14. Aug.
> > > > > > > 2019,
> > > > > > > > > > 19:43:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer to keep the language binding in the PR
> > > > > > process.
> > > > > > > > > > Perhaps
> > > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > could do some analytics to see how much each of the
> > > > > language
> > > > > > > > > bindings
> > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > contributing to overall run time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If we have some metrics on that, maybe we can come up
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > guideline
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > how much time each should take. Another possibility
> > is
> > > > > > leverage
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > parallel builds more.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:30 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > > > > > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carin.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a good point, all things considered would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > preference
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Clojure tests as part of the PR process or in
> > > > > Nightly?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some options are having notifications here or in
> > slack.
> > > > > But
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > breakages would go unnoticed maybe is not a good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > idea to
> > > > > > > fully
> > > > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bindings from the PR process and just streamline
> > the
> > > > > > process.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:09 AM Carin Meier <
> > > > > > > > > carinmeier@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before any binding tests are moved to nightly, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out how the community can get proper
> > notifications
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > success
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on those nightly runs. Otherwise, I think that
> > > > > breakages
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unnoticed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Carin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:47 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems we are hitting some problems in CI. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > propose
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > following
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > action
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > items to remedy the situation and accelerate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > turn
> > > > > > around
> > > > > > > > > times
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > CI,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reduce cost, complexity and probability of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > blocking
> > > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > frustrating developers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Upgrade Windows visual studio from VS 2015 to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VS
> > > > > > 2017.
> > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > build_windows.py infrastructure should easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > version.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently some PRs are blocked by this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13958
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Move Gluon Model zoo tests to nightly.
> > Tracked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/15295
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Move non-python bindings tests to nightly. If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > touching
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bindings, the reviewer should ask for a full
> > run
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > locally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use the label bot to trigger a full CI build,
> > or
> > > > > defer
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > nightly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Provide a couple of basic sanity performance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > small
> > > > > > > > > > > > models
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are run on CI and can be echoed by the label
> > bot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > > comment
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Address unit tests that take more than
> > 10-20s,
> > > > > > > streamline
> > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > move
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them to nightly if it can't be done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Open sourcing the remaining CI infrastructure
> > > > > scripts
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can contribute.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think our goal should be turnaround under
> > 30min.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would also like to touch base with the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being followed up by committers asking for
> > changes.
> > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > importtant and is hanging for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5051
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is another, less important but more
> > trivial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > review:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4940
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think comitters requesting changes and not
> > > > > folllowing
> > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is not healthy for the project. I suggest
> > > > > > > configuring
> > > > > > > > > > github
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notifications for a good SNR and following up.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> >
Re: new website (RE: CI and PRs)
Posted by Marco de Abreu <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
thanks a lot for these great notes! I'm happy to give my comments about
them :)
* Archiving is *very VERY* bad for the CI master performance. It floods the
disk with data since archiving persists the data. We are now at the point
where we technically can't extend the volume any further (we exceeded the
4TB limit and had to delete old runs). Thus, stashing is the only option
that's not harmful to the systems performance.
* Yeah, agree. One way is to build a Dockerfile, push it to your own
Dockerhub account and then in the MXNet DOckerfile just make "FROM
yourdockerhub:blabla".
* We support the GitHub Multi-Branch Pipeline and basically use this across
all jobs. So adhering to that system will result in the git repository
within the workspace being scoped to the correct branch. As a rule of thumb
it's basically a red flag as soon as you call anything with regards to git
(e.g. checking out a different branch, creating a commit, merging another
branch, etc) within your payload. Happy to help if you would like to have
that elaborated.
* Could you elaborate on "Publishing scripts seem to need a security
refactor, or we don't bother offering stand-alone access to them; running
local versus on Jenkins."? I don't really understand what you mean here.
* Basically it's an s3 bucket with a TTL of 30 days that our CI slaves have
permission to push to. We basically just upload the entire folder that is
being created. Is there anything specifically you're looking for?
* That's awesome!
Best regards,
Marco
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:52 PM Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'll start a different thread about the website. Sure, there's a lot
> of overlap with CI. I learned a lot in the last few weeks having to
> iterate on 7 different docs packages and trying to streamline the
> build process in CI.
>
> Here are my notes:
>
> * Stash operations vs. archiving - recommendations in the docs suggest
> that large artifacts should be archived; stash is super slow; archived
> artifacts seems to be faster and can be used between pipelines. This
> is helpful for the MXNet binary and for the Scala package, both of
> which are used by various other docs packages. However, there's an
> implication with the master server. Archived artifacts are stored
> there, so if the pipeline is related to PR validation, this would be
> unwieldy. If related to publishing final artifacts for specific
> versions, well, that's probably ok.
>
> * It seems that efficiency in development and testing can be gained by
> checkpointing the docker containers after the dependencies are
> installed. I can't stress how much time is lost while watching
> `apt-get update` run for the millionth time when testing new CI
> routines. It sort of makes me crazy(er).
>
> * A version/branch parameter would be useful for the Jenkins pipelines
> for generating docs artifacts from different branches.
>
> * Publishing scripts seem to need a security refactor, or we don't
> bother offering stand-alone access to them; running local versus on
> Jenkins.
>
> * I don't see any documentation on the S3 publishing steps and how to test
> this.
>
> * After breaking out each docs package in its own pipeline, I see
> opportunities to use the GitHub API to check the PR payload and be
> selective about what tests to run.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:03 PM Zhao, Patric <pa...@intel.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Aaron,
> >
> > Recently, we are working on improving the documents of CPU backend based
> on the current website.
> >
> > I saw there're several PRs to update the new website and it's really
> great.
> >
> > Thus, I'd like to know when the new website will online.
> > If it's very near, we will switch our works to the new website.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --Patric
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 11:40 AM
> > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: CI and PRs
> > >
> > > The PRs Thomas and I are working on for the new docs and website share
> > > the mxnet binary in the new CI pipelines we made. Speeds things up a
> lot.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 18:16 Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I see it done daily now, and while I can’t share all the details,
> it’s
> > > > not an incredibly complex thing, and involves not much more than
> > > > nfs/efs sharing and remote ssh commands. All it takes is a little
> > > > ingenuity and some imagination.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:31 PM Pedro Larroy
> > > > <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sounds good in theory. I think there are complex details with
> > > > > regards of resource sharing during parallel execution. Still I
> think
> > > > > both ways can
> > > > be
> > > > > explored. I think some tests run for unreasonably long times for
> > > > > what
> > > > they
> > > > > are doing. We already scale parts of the pipeline horizontally
> > > > > across workers.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:12 PM Chris Olivier
> > > > > <cj...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rather than remove tests (which doesn’t scale as a solution), why
> > > > > > not
> > > > > scale
> > > > > > them horizontally so that they finish more quickly? Across
> > > > > > processes or even on a pool of machines that aren’t necessarily
> the
> > > build machine?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:03 PM Marco de Abreu <
> > > > marco.g.abreu@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > With regards to time I rather prefer us spending a bit more
> time
> > > > > > > on maintenance than somebody running into an error that
> could've
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > caught
> > > > > > > with a test.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I mean, our Publishing pipeline for Scala GPU has been broken
> > > > > > > for
> > > > quite
> > > > > > > some time now, but nobody noticed that. Basically my stance on
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > matter
> > > > > > > is that as soon as something is not blocking, you can also just
> > > > > > deactivate
> > > > > > > it since you don't have a forcing function in an open source
> project.
> > > > > > > People will rarely come back and fix the errors of some nightly
> > > > > > > test
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > they introduced.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Marco
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 14. Aug.
> > > > > > > 2019,
> > > > > 21:59:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If a language binding test is failing for a not important
> > > > > > > > reason,
> > > > > then
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is too brittle and needs to be fixed (we have fixed some of
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Clojure package [1]).
> > > > > > > > But in general, if we thinking of the MXNet project as one
> > > > > > > > project
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > across all the language bindings, then we want to know if
> some
> > > > > > > fundamental
> > > > > > > > code change is going to break a downstream package.
> > > > > > > > I can't speak for all the high level package binding
> > > > > > > > maintainers,
> > > > but
> > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > always happy to pitch in to provide code fixes to help the
> > > > > > > > base PR
> > > > > get
> > > > > > > > green.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The time costs to maintain such a large CI project obviously
> > > > > > > > needs
> > > > to
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > considered as well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15579
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:48 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From what I have seen Clojure is 15 minutes, which I think
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > > The only question is that when a binding such as R, Perl or
> > > > Clojure
> > > > > > > > fails,
> > > > > > > > > some devs are a bit confused about how to fix them since
> > > > > > > > > they are
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > familiar with the testing tools and the language.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:57 AM Carin Meier <
> > > > carinmeier@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Great idea Marco! Anything that you think would be
> > > > > > > > > > valuable to
> > > > > > share
> > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > be good. The duration of each node in the test stage
> > > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > > like
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > - Carin
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 2:48 PM Marco de Abreu <
> > > > > > > > marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > we record a bunch of metrics about run statistics (down
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > duration
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > every individual step). If you tell me which ones
> you're
> > > > > > > particularly
> > > > > > > > > > > interested in (probably total duration of each node in
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > test
> > > > > > > > stage),
> > > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > happy to provide them.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dimensions are (in hierarchical order):
> > > > > > > > > > > - job
> > > > > > > > > > > - branch
> > > > > > > > > > > - stage
> > > > > > > > > > > - node
> > > > > > > > > > > - step
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I don't have the possibility to export
> > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > since
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > > them in CloudWatch Metrics which afaik doesn't offer
> raw
> > > > > exports.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > Marco
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi.,
> 14. Aug.
> > > > > > 2019,
> > > > > > > > > 19:43:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer to keep the language binding in the PR
> > > > > process.
> > > > > > > > > Perhaps
> > > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > could do some analytics to see how much each of the
> > > > language
> > > > > > > > bindings
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > contributing to overall run time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If we have some metrics on that, maybe we can come up
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > > guideline
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > how much time each should take. Another possibility
> is
> > > > > leverage
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > parallel builds more.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:30 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > > > > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carin.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That's a good point, all things considered would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > preference
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Clojure tests as part of the PR process or in
> > > > Nightly?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Some options are having notifications here or in
> slack.
> > > > But
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > breakages would go unnoticed maybe is not a good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > idea to
> > > > > > fully
> > > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > > bindings from the PR process and just streamline
> the
> > > > > process.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:09 AM Carin Meier <
> > > > > > > > carinmeier@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Before any binding tests are moved to nightly, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > > we
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > out how the community can get proper
> notifications
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > failure
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > success
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on those nightly runs. Otherwise, I think that
> > > > breakages
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unnoticed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Carin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:47 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems we are hitting some problems in CI. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > propose
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > following
> > > > > > > > > > > > > action
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > items to remedy the situation and accelerate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > turn
> > > > > around
> > > > > > > > times
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > CI,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reduce cost, complexity and probability of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > > blocking
> > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > frustrating developers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Upgrade Windows visual studio from VS 2015 to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VS
> > > > > 2017.
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > build_windows.py infrastructure should easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > version.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently some PRs are blocked by this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13958
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Move Gluon Model zoo tests to nightly.
> Tracked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/15295
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Move non-python bindings tests to nightly. If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > commit
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > touching
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bindings, the reviewer should ask for a full
> run
> > > > which
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > locally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > use the label bot to trigger a full CI build,
> or
> > > > defer
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > nightly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Provide a couple of basic sanity performance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > on
> > > > > > > small
> > > > > > > > > > > models
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are run on CI and can be echoed by the label
> bot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > > comment
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Address unit tests that take more than
> 10-20s,
> > > > > > streamline
> > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > move
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > them to nightly if it can't be done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Open sourcing the remaining CI infrastructure
> > > > scripts
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can contribute.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think our goal should be turnaround under
> 30min.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would also like to touch base with the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > that
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > being followed up by committers asking for
> changes.
> > > > For
> > > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > importtant and is hanging for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5051
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is another, less important but more
> trivial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > review:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4940
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think comitters requesting changes and not
> > > > folllowing
> > > > > > up
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is not healthy for the project. I suggest
> > > > > > configuring
> > > > > > > > > github
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notifications for a good SNR and following up.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
>
Re: new website (RE: CI and PRs)
Posted by Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>.
I'll start a different thread about the website. Sure, there's a lot
of overlap with CI. I learned a lot in the last few weeks having to
iterate on 7 different docs packages and trying to streamline the
build process in CI.
Here are my notes:
* Stash operations vs. archiving - recommendations in the docs suggest
that large artifacts should be archived; stash is super slow; archived
artifacts seems to be faster and can be used between pipelines. This
is helpful for the MXNet binary and for the Scala package, both of
which are used by various other docs packages. However, there's an
implication with the master server. Archived artifacts are stored
there, so if the pipeline is related to PR validation, this would be
unwieldy. If related to publishing final artifacts for specific
versions, well, that's probably ok.
* It seems that efficiency in development and testing can be gained by
checkpointing the docker containers after the dependencies are
installed. I can't stress how much time is lost while watching
`apt-get update` run for the millionth time when testing new CI
routines. It sort of makes me crazy(er).
* A version/branch parameter would be useful for the Jenkins pipelines
for generating docs artifacts from different branches.
* Publishing scripts seem to need a security refactor, or we don't
bother offering stand-alone access to them; running local versus on
Jenkins.
* I don't see any documentation on the S3 publishing steps and how to test this.
* After breaking out each docs package in its own pipeline, I see
opportunities to use the GitHub API to check the PR payload and be
selective about what tests to run.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:03 PM Zhao, Patric <pa...@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> Recently, we are working on improving the documents of CPU backend based on the current website.
>
> I saw there're several PRs to update the new website and it's really great.
>
> Thus, I'd like to know when the new website will online.
> If it's very near, we will switch our works to the new website.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Patric
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Aaron Markham <aa...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 11:40 AM
> > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: CI and PRs
> >
> > The PRs Thomas and I are working on for the new docs and website share
> > the mxnet binary in the new CI pipelines we made. Speeds things up a lot.
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019, 18:16 Chris Olivier <cj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I see it done daily now, and while I can’t share all the details, it’s
> > > not an incredibly complex thing, and involves not much more than
> > > nfs/efs sharing and remote ssh commands. All it takes is a little
> > > ingenuity and some imagination.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:31 PM Pedro Larroy
> > > <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sounds good in theory. I think there are complex details with
> > > > regards of resource sharing during parallel execution. Still I think
> > > > both ways can
> > > be
> > > > explored. I think some tests run for unreasonably long times for
> > > > what
> > > they
> > > > are doing. We already scale parts of the pipeline horizontally
> > > > across workers.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:12 PM Chris Olivier
> > > > <cj...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > Rather than remove tests (which doesn’t scale as a solution), why
> > > > > not
> > > > scale
> > > > > them horizontally so that they finish more quickly? Across
> > > > > processes or even on a pool of machines that aren’t necessarily the
> > build machine?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:03 PM Marco de Abreu <
> > > marco.g.abreu@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > With regards to time I rather prefer us spending a bit more time
> > > > > > on maintenance than somebody running into an error that could've
> > > > > > been
> > > > caught
> > > > > > with a test.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I mean, our Publishing pipeline for Scala GPU has been broken
> > > > > > for
> > > quite
> > > > > > some time now, but nobody noticed that. Basically my stance on
> > > > > > that
> > > > > matter
> > > > > > is that as soon as something is not blocking, you can also just
> > > > > deactivate
> > > > > > it since you don't have a forcing function in an open source project.
> > > > > > People will rarely come back and fix the errors of some nightly
> > > > > > test
> > > > that
> > > > > > they introduced.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Marco
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 14. Aug.
> > > > > > 2019,
> > > > 21:59:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If a language binding test is failing for a not important
> > > > > > > reason,
> > > > then
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > is too brittle and needs to be fixed (we have fixed some of
> > > > > > > these
> > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > Clojure package [1]).
> > > > > > > But in general, if we thinking of the MXNet project as one
> > > > > > > project
> > > > that
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > across all the language bindings, then we want to know if some
> > > > > > fundamental
> > > > > > > code change is going to break a downstream package.
> > > > > > > I can't speak for all the high level package binding
> > > > > > > maintainers,
> > > but
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > always happy to pitch in to provide code fixes to help the
> > > > > > > base PR
> > > > get
> > > > > > > green.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The time costs to maintain such a large CI project obviously
> > > > > > > needs
> > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > considered as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/15579
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 3:48 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From what I have seen Clojure is 15 minutes, which I think
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > reasonable.
> > > > > > > > The only question is that when a binding such as R, Perl or
> > > Clojure
> > > > > > > fails,
> > > > > > > > some devs are a bit confused about how to fix them since
> > > > > > > > they are
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > familiar with the testing tools and the language.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:57 AM Carin Meier <
> > > carinmeier@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Great idea Marco! Anything that you think would be
> > > > > > > > > valuable to
> > > > > share
> > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > be good. The duration of each node in the test stage
> > > > > > > > > sounds
> > > like
> > > > a
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > start.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - Carin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 2:48 PM Marco de Abreu <
> > > > > > > marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > we record a bunch of metrics about run statistics (down
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > the
> > > > > > > duration
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > every individual step). If you tell me which ones you're
> > > > > > particularly
> > > > > > > > > > interested in (probably total duration of each node in
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > test
> > > > > > > stage),
> > > > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > happy to provide them.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dimensions are (in hierarchical order):
> > > > > > > > > > - job
> > > > > > > > > > - branch
> > > > > > > > > > - stage
> > > > > > > > > > - node
> > > > > > > > > > - step
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately I don't have the possibility to export
> > > > > > > > > > them
> > > since
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > store
> > > > > > > > > > them in CloudWatch Metrics which afaik doesn't offer raw
> > > > exports.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best regards,
> > > > > > > > > > Marco
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Carin Meier <ca...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 14. Aug.
> > > > > 2019,
> > > > > > > > 19:43:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I would prefer to keep the language binding in the PR
> > > > process.
> > > > > > > > Perhaps
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > could do some analytics to see how much each of the
> > > language
> > > > > > > bindings
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > contributing to overall run time.
> > > > > > > > > > > If we have some metrics on that, maybe we can come up
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > a
> > > > > > > > guideline
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > how much time each should take. Another possibility is
> > > > leverage
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > parallel builds more.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:30 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > > > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Carin.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > That's a good point, all things considered would
> > > > > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > preference
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > > > > the Clojure tests as part of the PR process or in
> > > Nightly?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Some options are having notifications here or in slack.
> > > But
> > > > > if
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > > > > > breakages would go unnoticed maybe is not a good
> > > > > > > > > > > > idea to
> > > > > fully
> > > > > > > > remove
> > > > > > > > > > > > bindings from the PR process and just streamline the
> > > > process.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 5:09 AM Carin Meier <
> > > > > > > carinmeier@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Before any binding tests are moved to nightly, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > think
> > > we
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > figure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > out how the community can get proper notifications
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > failure
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > success
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on those nightly runs. Otherwise, I think that
> > > breakages
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unnoticed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -Carin
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:47 PM Pedro Larroy <
> > > > > > > > > > > > pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seems we are hitting some problems in CI. I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > propose
> > > the
> > > > > > > > following
> > > > > > > > > > > > action
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > items to remedy the situation and accelerate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > turn
> > > > around
> > > > > > > times
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > CI,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reduce cost, complexity and probability of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > failure
> > > > > blocking
> > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > frustrating developers:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Upgrade Windows visual studio from VS 2015 to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > VS
> > > > 2017.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > build_windows.py infrastructure should easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > version.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently some PRs are blocked by this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/13958
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Move Gluon Model zoo tests to nightly. Tracked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/15295
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Move non-python bindings tests to nightly. If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > commit
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > touching
> > > > > > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bindings, the reviewer should ask for a full run
> > > which
> > > > > can
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > > > > > > > locally,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > use the label bot to trigger a full CI build, or
> > > defer
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > nightly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Provide a couple of basic sanity performance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > on
> > > > > > small
> > > > > > > > > > models
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are run on CI and can be echoed by the label bot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as a
> > > > > > comment
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Address unit tests that take more than 10-20s,
> > > > > streamline
> > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > move
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > them to nightly if it can't be done.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Open sourcing the remaining CI infrastructure
> > > scripts
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can contribute.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think our goal should be turnaround under 30min.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would also like to touch base with the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > that
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > being followed up by committers asking for changes.
> > > For
> > > > > > > example
> > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > importtant and is hanging for a long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 5051
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is another, less important but more trivial
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > review:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/1
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4940
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think comitters requesting changes and not
> > > folllowing
> > > > > up
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > time is not healthy for the project. I suggest
> > > > > configuring
> > > > > > > > github
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notifications for a good SNR and following up.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pedro.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >