You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flink.apache.org by Xiyuan Wang <wa...@gmail.com> on 2019/10/24 02:06:09 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] Reducing build times
Hi,
How is the CI migration going? I notice that Azure pipelines support
adding self-hosted pipeline agent.[1] How do you think that OpenLab donate
some ARM resources to Flink community as a agent pool? In this way, X86 and
ARM can be handled by the same CI config easily. Then we don't need do more
effort to adding OpenLab CI support and Flink Community can have the full
access to the ARM resources as well.
Thanks.
[1 ]
https://docs.microsoft.com/zh-cn/azure/devops/pipelines/agents/v2-linux?view=azure-devops
Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org> 于2019年9月5日周四 下午8:54写道：
> I do have a working Azure setup, yes. E2E tests are not included in the
> 3.5hrs.
>
> Yesterday, I became aware of a major blocker with Azure pipelines: Apache
> Infra does not allow it to be integrated with Apache GitHub repositories,
> because it requires write access (for a simple usability feature) [1]. This
> means that we "have" to use CiBot for the time being.
> I've also reached out to Microsoft to see if they can do anything about it.
>
> +1 For setting it up with CiBot immediately.
>
> [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17030
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:04 AM Chesnay Schepler <ch...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I assume you already have a working (and verified) azure setup?
> >
> > Once we're running things on azure on the apache repo people will
> > invariably use that as a source of truth because fancy check marks will
> > yet again appear on commits. Hence I'm wary of running experiments here;
> > I would prefer if we only activate it once things are confirmed to be
> > working.
> >
> > For observation purposes, we could also add it to flink-ci with
> > notifications to people who are interested in this experiment.
> > This wouldn't impact CiBot.
> >
> > On 03/09/2019 18:57, Robert Metzger wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I wanted to give a short update on this:
> > > - Arvid, Aljoscha and I have started working on a Gradle PoC, currently
> > > working on making all modules compile and test with Gradle. We've also
> > > identified some problematic areas (shading being the most obvious one)
> > > which we will analyse as part of the PoC.
> > > The goal is to see how much Gradle helps to parallelise our build, and
> to
> > > avoid duplicate work (incremental builds).
> > >
> > > - I am working on setting up a Flink testing infrastructure based on
> > Azure
> > > Pipelines, using more powerful hardware. Alibaba kindly provided me
> with
> > > two 32 core machines (temporarily), and another company reached out to
> > > privately, looking into options for cheap, fast machines :)
> > > If nobody in the community disagrees, I am going to set up Azure
> > Pipelines
> > > with our apache/flink GitHub as a build infrastructure that exists next
> > to
> > > Flinkbot and flink-ci. I would like to make sure that Azure Pipelines
> is
> > > equally or even more reliable than Travis, and I want to see what the
> > > required maintenance work is.
> > > On top of that, Azure Pipelines is a very feature-rich tool with a lot
> of
> > > nice options for us to improve the build experience (statistics about
> > tests
> > > (flaky tests etc.), nice docker support, plenty of free build resources
> > for
> > > open source projects, ...)
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Robert
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 5:12 PM Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> I have summarized all arguments mentioned so far + some additional
> > >> research into a Wiki page here:
> > >>
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=125309279
> > >>
> > >> I'm happy to hear further comments on my summary! I'm pretty sure we
> can
> > >> find more pro's and con's for the different options.
> > >>
> > >> My opinion after looking at the options:
> > >>
> > >> - Flink relies on an outdated build tool (Maven), while a good
> > >> alternative is well-established (gradle), and will likely provide
> a
> > much
> > >> better CI and local build experience through incremental build and
> > cached
> > >> intermediates.
> > >> Scripting around Maven, or splitting modules / test execution /
> > >> repositories won't solve this problem. We should rather spend the
> > effort in
> > >> migrating to a modern build tool which will provide us benefits in
> > the long
> > >> run.
> > >> - Flink relies on a fairly slow build service (Travis CI), while
> > >> simply putting more money onto the problem could cut the build
> time
> > at
> > >> least in half.
> > >> We should consider using a build service that provides bigger
> > machines
> > >> to solve our build time problem.
> > >>
> > >> My opinion is based on many assumptions (gradle is actually as fast as
> > >> promised (haven't used it before), we can build Flink with gradle, we
> > find
> > >> sponsors for bigger build machines) that we need to test first through
> > PoCs.
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> Robert
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:26 AM Aljoscha Krettek <
> aljoscha@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> I did a quick test: a normal "mvn clean install -DskipTests
> > >>> -Drat.skip=true -Dmaven.javadoc.skip=true -Punsafe-mapr-repo” on my
> > machine
> > >>> takes about 14 minutes. After removing all mentions of
> > maven-shade-plugin
> > >>> the build time goes down to roughly 11.5 minutes. (Obviously the
> > resulting
> > >>> Flink won’t work, because some expected stuff is not packaged and
> most
> > of
> > >>> the end-to-end tests use the shade plugin to package the jars for
> > testing.
> > >>>
> > >>> Aljoscha
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 18. Aug 2019, at 19:52, Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi all,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I wanted to understand the impact of the hardware we are using for
> > >>> running
> > >>>> our tests. Each travis worker has 2 virtual cores, and 7.5 gb memory
> > >>> [1].
> > >>>> They are using Google Cloud Compute Engine *n1-standard-2*
> instances.
> > >>>> Running a full "mvn clean verify" takes *03:32 h* on such a machine
> > >>> type.
> > >>>> Running the same workload on a 32 virtual cores, 64 gb machine,
> takes
> > >>> *1:21
> > >>>> h*.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What is interesting are the per-module build time differences.
> > >>>> Modules which are parallelizing tests well greatly benefit from the
> > >>>> additional cores:
> > >>>> "flink-tests" 36:51 min vs 4:33 min
> > >>>> "flink-runtime" 23:41 min vs 3:47 min
> > >>>> "flink-table-planner" 15:54 min vs 3:13 min
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On the other hand, we have modules which are not parallel at all:
> > >>>> "flink-connector-kafka": 16:32 min vs 15:19 min
> > >>>> "flink-connector-kafka-0.11": 9:52 min vs 7:46 min
> > >>>> Also, the checkstyle plugin is not scaling at all.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Chesnay reported some significant speedups by reusing forks.
> > >>>> I don't know how much effort it would be to make the Kafka tests
> > >>>> parallelizable. In total, they currently use 30 minutes on the big
> > >>> machine
> > >>>> (while 31 CPUs are idling :) )
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Let me know what you think about these results. If the community is
> > >>>> generally interested in further investigating into that direction, I
> > >>> could
> > >>>> look into software to orchestrate this, as well as sponsors for such
> > an
> > >>>> infrastructure.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [1] https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/reference/overview/
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:27 PM Chesnay Schepler <
> chesnay@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>> @Aljoscha Shading takes a few minutes for a full build; you can see
> > >>> this
> > >>>>> quite easily by looking at the compile step in the misc profile
> > >>>>> <https://api.travis-ci.org/v3/job/572560060/log.txt>; all modules
> > that
> > >>>>> longer than a fraction of a section are usually caused by shading
> > lots
> > >>>>> of classes. Note that I cannot tell you how much of this is spent
> on
> > >>>>> relocations, and how much on writing the jar.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Personally, I'd very much like us to move all shading to
> > flink-shaded;
> > >>>>> this would finally allows us to use newer maven versions without
> > >>> needing
> > >>>>> cumbersome workarounds for flink-dist. However, this isn't a
> trivial
> > >>>>> affair in some cases; IIRC calcite could be difficult to handle.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On another note, this would also simplify switching the main repo
> to
> > >>>>> another build system, since you would no longer had to deal with
> > >>>>> relocations, just packaging + merging NOTICE files.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> @BowenLi I disagree, flink-shaded does not include any tests, API
> > >>>>> compatibility checks, checkstyle, layered shading (e.g.,
> > flink-runtime
> > >>>>> and flink-dist, where both relocate dependencies and one is bundled
> > by
> > >>>>> the other), and, most importantly, CI (and really, without CI being
> > >>>>> covered in a PoC there's nothing to discuss).
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 16/08/2019 15:13, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > >>>>>> Speaking of flink-shaded, do we have any idea what the impact of
> > >>> shading
> > >>>>> is on the build time? We could get rid of shading completely in the
> > >>> Flink
> > >>>>> main repository by moving everything that we shade to flink-shaded.
> > >>>>>> Aljoscha
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 16. Aug 2019, at 14:58, Bowen Li <bo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> +1 to Till's points on #2 and #5, especially the potential
> > >>>>> non-disruptive,
> > >>>>>>> gradual migration approach if we decide to go that route.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> To add on, I want to point it out that we can actually start with
> > >>>>>>> flink-shaded project [1] which is a perfect candidate for PoC.
> It's
> > >>> of
> > >>>>> much
> > >>>>>>> smaller size, totally isolated from and not interfered with flink
> > >>>>> project
> > >>>>>>> [2], and it actually covers most of our practical feature
> > >>> requirements
> > >>>>> for
> > >>>>>>> a build tool - all making it an ideal experimental field.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-shaded
> > >>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/flink
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:52 AM Till Rohrmann <
> > trohrmann@apache.org>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> For the sake of keeping the discussion focused and not
> cluttering
> > >>> the
> > >>>>>>>> discussion thread I would suggest to split the detailed
> reporting
> > >>> for
> > >>>>>>>> reusing JVMs to a separate thread and cross linking it from
> here.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>> Till
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:36 PM Chesnay Schepler <
> > >>> chesnay@apache.org>
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Update:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> TL;DR: table-planner is a good candidate for enabling fork
> reuse
> > >>> right
> > >>>>>>>>> away, while flink-tests has the potential for huge savings, but
> > we
> > >>>>> have
> > >>>>>>>>> to figure out some issues first.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Build link:
> https://travis-ci.org/zentol/flink/builds/572659220
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> 4/8 profiles failed.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> No speedup in libraries, python, blink_planner, 7 minutes saved
> > in
> > >>>>>>>>> libraries (table-planner).
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> The kafka and connectors profiles both fail in kafka tests due
> to
> > >>>>>>>>> producer leaks, and no speed up could be confirmed so far:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> java.lang.AssertionError: Detected producer leak. Thread name:
> > >>>>>>>>> kafka-producer-network-thread | producer-239
> > >>>>>>>>> at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:88)
> > >>>>>>>>> at
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>
> >
> org.apache.flink.streaming.connectors.kafka.FlinkKafkaProducer011ITCase.checkProducerLeak(FlinkKafkaProducer011ITCase.java:677)
> > >>>>>>>>> at
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>
> >
> org.apache.flink.streaming.connectors.kafka.FlinkKafkaProducer011ITCase.testFlinkKafkaProducer011FailBeforeNotify(FlinkKafkaProducer011ITCase.java:210)
> > >>>>>>>>> The tests profile failed due to various errors in migration
> > tests:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Did not see the expected
> > >>>>>>>> accumulator
> > >>>>>>>>> results within time limit.
> > >>>>>>>>> at
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>
> >
> org.apache.flink.test.migration.TypeSerializerSnapshotMigrationITCase.testSavepoint(TypeSerializerSnapshotMigrationITCase.java:141)
> > >>>>>>>>> *However*, a normal tests run takes 40 minutes, while this one
> > >>> above
> > >>>>>>>>> failed after 19 minutes and is only missing the migration tests
> > >>> (which
> > >>>>>>>>> currently need 6-7 minutes). So we could save somewhere between
> > 15
> > >>> to
> > >>>>> 20
> > >>>>>>>>> minutes here.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Finally, the misc profiles fails in YARN:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> java.lang.AssertionError
> > >>>>>>>>> at
> > >>> org.apache.flink.yarn.YARNITCase.setup(YARNITCase.java:64)
> > >>>>>>>>> No significant speedup could be observed in other modules; for
> > >>>>>>>>> flink-yarn-tests we can maybe get a minute or 2 out of it.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On 16/08/2019 10:43, Chesnay Schepler wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> There appears to be a general agreement that 1) should be
> looked
> > >>>>> into;
> > >>>>>>>>>> I've setup a branch with fork reuse being enabled for all
> tests;
> > >>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>> report back the results.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 15/08/2019 09:38, Chesnay Schepler wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> improving our build times is a hot topic at the moment so
> let's
> > >>>>>>>>>>> discuss the different ways how they could be reduced.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Current state:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> First up, let's look at some numbers:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 1 full build currently consumes 5h of build time total
> ("total
> > >>>>>>>>>>> time"), and in the ideal case takes about 1h20m ("run time")
> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> complete from start to finish. The run time may fluctuate of
> > >>> course
> > >>>>>>>>>>> depending on the current Travis load. This applies both to
> > >>> builds on
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the Apache and flink-ci Travis.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> At the time of writing, the current queue time for PR jobs
> > >>>>> (reminder:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> running on flink-ci) is about 30 minutes (which basically
> means
> > >>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>> we are processing builds at the rate that they come in),
> > however
> > >>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>>> are in an admittedly quiet period right now.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2 weeks ago the queue times on flink-ci peaked at around 5-6h
> > as
> > >>>>>>>>>>> everyone was scrambling to get their changes merged in time
> for
> > >>> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> feature freeze.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> (Note: Recently optimizations where added to ci-bot where
> > pending
> > >>>>>>>>>>> builds are canceled if a new commit was pushed to the PR or
> the
> > >>> PR
> > >>>>>>>>>>> was closed, which should prove especially useful during the
> > rush
> > >>>>>>>>>>> hours we see before feature-freezes.)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Past approaches
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Over the years we have done rather few things to improve this
> > >>>>>>>>>>> situation (hence our current predicament).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Beyond the sporadic speedup of some tests, the only notable
> > >>>>> reduction
> > >>>>>>>>>>> in total build times was the introduction of cron jobs, which
> > >>>>>>>>>>> consolidated the per-commit matrix from 4 configurations
> > >>> (different
> > >>>>>>>>>>> scala/hadoop versions) to 1.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The separation into multiple build profiles was only a
> > >>> work-around
> > >>>>>>>>>>> for the 50m limit on Travis. Running tests in parallel has
> the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> obvious potential of reducing run time, but we're currently
> > >>> hitting
> > >>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>>> hard limit since a few modules (flink-tests, flink-runtime,
> > >>>>>>>>>>> flink-table-planner-blink) are so loaded with tests that they
> > >>> nearly
> > >>>>>>>>>>> consume an entire profile by themselves (and thus no further
> > >>>>>>>>>>> splitting is possible).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> The rework that introduced stages, at the time of
> introduction,
> > >>> did
> > >>>>>>>>>>> also not provide a speed up, although this changed slightly
> > once
> > >>>>> more
> > >>>>>>>>>>> profiles were added and some optimizations to the caching
> have
> > >>> been
> > >>>>>>>>>>> made.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Very recently we modified the surefire-plugin configuration
> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>> flink-table-planner-blink to reuse JVM forks for IT cases,
> > >>> providing
> > >>>>>>>>>>> a significant speedup (18 minutes!). So far we have not seen
> > any
> > >>>>>>>>>>> negative consequences.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Suggestions
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> This is a list of /all /suggestions for reducing run/total
> > times
> > >>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>>>>> I have seen recently (in other words, they aren't necessarily
> > >>> mine
> > >>>>>>>>>>> nor may I agree with all of them).
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Enable JVM reuse for IT cases in more modules.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> * We've seen significant speedups in the blink planner,
> > and
> > >>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>>>>> should be applicable for all modules. However, I
> presume
> > >>>>>>>> there's
> > >>>>>>>>>>> a reason why we disabled JVM reuse (information on
> this
> > >>> would
> > >>>>>>>> be
> > >>>>>>>>>>> appreciated)
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Custom differential build scripts
> > >>>>>>>>>>> * Setup custom scripts for determining which modules
> > might be
> > >>>>>>>>>>> affected by change, and manipulate the splits
> > accordingly.
> > >>>>> This
> > >>>>>>>>>>> approach is conceptually quite straight-forward, but
> has
> > >>>>> limits
> > >>>>>>>>>>> since it has to be pessimistic; i.e. a change in
> > flink-core
> > >>>>>>>>>>> _must_ result in testing all modules.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. Only run smoke tests when PR is opened, run heavy tests on
> > >>>>> demand.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> * With the introduction of the ci-bot we now have
> > >>> significantly
> > >>>>>>>>>>> more options on how to handle PR builds. One option
> > could
> > >>> be
> > >>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>>>> only run basic tests when the PR is created (which may
> > be
> > >>>>> only
> > >>>>>>>>>>> modified modules, or all unit tests, or another
> low-cost
> > >>>>>>>>>>> scheme), and then have a committer trigger other
> builds
> > >>> (full
> > >>>>>>>>>>> test run, e2e tests, etc...) on demand.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 4. Move more tests into cron builds
> > >>>>>>>>>>> * The budget version of 3); move certain tests that are
> > >>> either
> > >>>>>>>>>>> expensive (like some runtime tests that take minutes)
> > or in
> > >>>>>>>>>>> rarely modified modules (like gelly) into cron jobs.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 5. Gradle
> > >>>>>>>>>>> * Gradle was brought up a few times for it's built-in
> > support
> > >>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>>>>> differential builds; basically providing 2) without
> the
> > >>>>>>>> overhead
> > >>>>>>>>>>> of maintaining additional scripts.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> * To date no PoC was provided that shows it working in
> > our CI
> > >>>>>>>>>>> environment (i.e., handling splits & caching etc).
> > >>>>>>>>>>> * This is the most disruptive change by a fair margin,
> as
> > it
> > >>>>>>>> would
> > >>>>>>>>>>> affect the entire project, developers and potentially
> > users
> > >>>>> (f
> > >>>>>>>>>>> they build from source).
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 6. CI service
> > >>>>>>>>>>> * Our current artifact caching setup on Travis is
> > basically a
> > >>>>>>>>>>> hack; we're basically abusing the Travis cache, which
> is
> > >>>>> meant
> > >>>>>>>>>>> for long-term caching, to ship build artifacts across
> > jobs.
> > >>>>>>>> It's
> > >>>>>>>>>>> brittle at times due to timing/visibility issues and
> on
> > >>>>>>>> branches
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the cleanup processes can interfere with running
> > builds. It
> > >>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>>>>> also not as effective as it could be.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> * There are CI services that provide build artifact
> > caching
> > >>> out
> > >>>>>>>> of
> > >>>>>>>>>>> the box, which could be useful for us.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> * To date, no PoC for using another CI service has been
> > >>>>> provided.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Reducing build times
Posted by Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>.
Hi,
we have not decided how to proceed on the issue yet. I'm currently in the
process of setting up some metrics for understanding the impact on the
end-to-end build times of Travis vs Azure Pipelines.
In my current PoC [1], we are also using self-hosted pipeline agents. Feel
free to reach out to me via email, so that we can set up a trial for the
ARM integration.
[1] https://dev.azure.com/rmetzger/Flink/_build?definitionId=4&_a=summary
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 4:07 AM Xiyuan Wang <wa...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
> How is the CI migration going? I notice that Azure pipelines support
> adding self-hosted pipeline agent.[1] How do you think that OpenLab donate
> some ARM resources to Flink community as a agent pool? In this way, X86 and
> ARM can be handled by the same CI config easily. Then we don't need do more
> effort to adding OpenLab CI support and Flink Community can have the full
> access to the ARM resources as well.
>
> Thanks.
>
> [1 ]
>
> https://docs.microsoft.com/zh-cn/azure/devops/pipelines/agents/v2-linux?view=azure-devops
>
> Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org> 于2019年9月5日周四 下午8:54写道：
>
> > I do have a working Azure setup, yes. E2E tests are not included in the
> > 3.5hrs.
> >
> > Yesterday, I became aware of a major blocker with Azure pipelines: Apache
> > Infra does not allow it to be integrated with Apache GitHub repositories,
> > because it requires write access (for a simple usability feature) [1].
> This
> > means that we "have" to use CiBot for the time being.
> > I've also reached out to Microsoft to see if they can do anything about
> it.
> >
> > +1 For setting it up with CiBot immediately.
> >
> > [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-17030
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:04 AM Chesnay Schepler <ch...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I assume you already have a working (and verified) azure setup?
> > >
> > > Once we're running things on azure on the apache repo people will
> > > invariably use that as a source of truth because fancy check marks will
> > > yet again appear on commits. Hence I'm wary of running experiments
> here;
> > > I would prefer if we only activate it once things are confirmed to be
> > > working.
> > >
> > > For observation purposes, we could also add it to flink-ci with
> > > notifications to people who are interested in this experiment.
> > > This wouldn't impact CiBot.
> > >
> > > On 03/09/2019 18:57, Robert Metzger wrote:
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I wanted to give a short update on this:
> > > > - Arvid, Aljoscha and I have started working on a Gradle PoC,
> currently
> > > > working on making all modules compile and test with Gradle. We've
> also
> > > > identified some problematic areas (shading being the most obvious
> one)
> > > > which we will analyse as part of the PoC.
> > > > The goal is to see how much Gradle helps to parallelise our build,
> and
> > to
> > > > avoid duplicate work (incremental builds).
> > > >
> > > > - I am working on setting up a Flink testing infrastructure based on
> > > Azure
> > > > Pipelines, using more powerful hardware. Alibaba kindly provided me
> > with
> > > > two 32 core machines (temporarily), and another company reached out
> to
> > > > privately, looking into options for cheap, fast machines :)
> > > > If nobody in the community disagrees, I am going to set up Azure
> > > Pipelines
> > > > with our apache/flink GitHub as a build infrastructure that exists
> next
> > > to
> > > > Flinkbot and flink-ci. I would like to make sure that Azure Pipelines
> > is
> > > > equally or even more reliable than Travis, and I want to see what the
> > > > required maintenance work is.
> > > > On top of that, Azure Pipelines is a very feature-rich tool with a
> lot
> > of
> > > > nice options for us to improve the build experience (statistics about
> > > tests
> > > > (flaky tests etc.), nice docker support, plenty of free build
> resources
> > > for
> > > > open source projects, ...)
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Robert
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 5:12 PM Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi all,
> > > >>
> > > >> I have summarized all arguments mentioned so far + some additional
> > > >> research into a Wiki page here:
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=125309279
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm happy to hear further comments on my summary! I'm pretty sure we
> > can
> > > >> find more pro's and con's for the different options.
> > > >>
> > > >> My opinion after looking at the options:
> > > >>
> > > >> - Flink relies on an outdated build tool (Maven), while a good
> > > >> alternative is well-established (gradle), and will likely
> provide
> > a
> > > much
> > > >> better CI and local build experience through incremental build
> and
> > > cached
> > > >> intermediates.
> > > >> Scripting around Maven, or splitting modules / test execution /
> > > >> repositories won't solve this problem. We should rather spend
> the
> > > effort in
> > > >> migrating to a modern build tool which will provide us benefits
> in
> > > the long
> > > >> run.
> > > >> - Flink relies on a fairly slow build service (Travis CI), while
> > > >> simply putting more money onto the problem could cut the build
> > time
> > > at
> > > >> least in half.
> > > >> We should consider using a build service that provides bigger
> > > machines
> > > >> to solve our build time problem.
> > > >>
> > > >> My opinion is based on many assumptions (gradle is actually as fast
> as
> > > >> promised (haven't used it before), we can build Flink with gradle,
> we
> > > find
> > > >> sponsors for bigger build machines) that we need to test first
> through
> > > PoCs.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best,
> > > >> Robert
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 10:26 AM Aljoscha Krettek <
> > aljoscha@apache.org>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I did a quick test: a normal "mvn clean install -DskipTests
> > > >>> -Drat.skip=true -Dmaven.javadoc.skip=true -Punsafe-mapr-repo” on my
> > > machine
> > > >>> takes about 14 minutes. After removing all mentions of
> > > maven-shade-plugin
> > > >>> the build time goes down to roughly 11.5 minutes. (Obviously the
> > > resulting
> > > >>> Flink won’t work, because some expected stuff is not packaged and
> > most
> > > of
> > > >>> the end-to-end tests use the shade plugin to package the jars for
> > > testing.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Aljoscha
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On 18. Aug 2019, at 19:52, Robert Metzger <rm...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Hi all,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I wanted to understand the impact of the hardware we are using for
> > > >>> running
> > > >>>> our tests. Each travis worker has 2 virtual cores, and 7.5 gb
> memory
> > > >>> [1].
> > > >>>> They are using Google Cloud Compute Engine *n1-standard-2*
> > instances.
> > > >>>> Running a full "mvn clean verify" takes *03:32 h* on such a
> machine
> > > >>> type.
> > > >>>> Running the same workload on a 32 virtual cores, 64 gb machine,
> > takes
> > > >>> *1:21
> > > >>>> h*.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> What is interesting are the per-module build time differences.
> > > >>>> Modules which are parallelizing tests well greatly benefit from
> the
> > > >>>> additional cores:
> > > >>>> "flink-tests" 36:51 min vs 4:33 min
> > > >>>> "flink-runtime" 23:41 min vs 3:47 min
> > > >>>> "flink-table-planner" 15:54 min vs 3:13 min
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On the other hand, we have modules which are not parallel at all:
> > > >>>> "flink-connector-kafka": 16:32 min vs 15:19 min
> > > >>>> "flink-connector-kafka-0.11": 9:52 min vs 7:46 min
> > > >>>> Also, the checkstyle plugin is not scaling at all.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Chesnay reported some significant speedups by reusing forks.
> > > >>>> I don't know how much effort it would be to make the Kafka tests
> > > >>>> parallelizable. In total, they currently use 30 minutes on the big
> > > >>> machine
> > > >>>> (while 31 CPUs are idling :) )
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Let me know what you think about these results. If the community
> is
> > > >>>> generally interested in further investigating into that
> direction, I
> > > >>> could
> > > >>>> look into software to orchestrate this, as well as sponsors for
> such
> > > an
> > > >>>> infrastructure.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> [1] https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/reference/overview/
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:27 PM Chesnay Schepler <
> > chesnay@apache.org>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>> @Aljoscha Shading takes a few minutes for a full build; you can
> see
> > > >>> this
> > > >>>>> quite easily by looking at the compile step in the misc profile
> > > >>>>> <https://api.travis-ci.org/v3/job/572560060/log.txt>; all
> modules
> > > that
> > > >>>>> longer than a fraction of a section are usually caused by shading
> > > lots
> > > >>>>> of classes. Note that I cannot tell you how much of this is spent
> > on
> > > >>>>> relocations, and how much on writing the jar.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Personally, I'd very much like us to move all shading to
> > > flink-shaded;
> > > >>>>> this would finally allows us to use newer maven versions without
> > > >>> needing
> > > >>>>> cumbersome workarounds for flink-dist. However, this isn't a
> > trivial
> > > >>>>> affair in some cases; IIRC calcite could be difficult to handle.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On another note, this would also simplify switching the main repo
> > to
> > > >>>>> another build system, since you would no longer had to deal with
> > > >>>>> relocations, just packaging + merging NOTICE files.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> @BowenLi I disagree, flink-shaded does not include any tests,
> API
> > > >>>>> compatibility checks, checkstyle, layered shading (e.g.,
> > > flink-runtime
> > > >>>>> and flink-dist, where both relocate dependencies and one is
> bundled
> > > by
> > > >>>>> the other), and, most importantly, CI (and really, without CI
> being
> > > >>>>> covered in a PoC there's nothing to discuss).
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On 16/08/2019 15:13, Aljoscha Krettek wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Speaking of flink-shaded, do we have any idea what the impact of
> > > >>> shading
> > > >>>>> is on the build time? We could get rid of shading completely in
> the
> > > >>> Flink
> > > >>>>> main repository by moving everything that we shade to
> flink-shaded.
> > > >>>>>> Aljoscha
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On 16. Aug 2019, at 14:58, Bowen Li <bo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> +1 to Till's points on #2 and #5, especially the potential
> > > >>>>> non-disruptive,
> > > >>>>>>> gradual migration approach if we decide to go that route.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> To add on, I want to point it out that we can actually start
> with
> > > >>>>>>> flink-shaded project [1] which is a perfect candidate for PoC.
> > It's
> > > >>> of
> > > >>>>> much
> > > >>>>>>> smaller size, totally isolated from and not interfered with
> flink
> > > >>>>> project
> > > >>>>>>> [2], and it actually covers most of our practical feature
> > > >>> requirements
> > > >>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>> a build tool - all making it an ideal experimental field.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/flink-shaded
> > > >>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/flink
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:52 AM Till Rohrmann <
> > > trohrmann@apache.org>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> For the sake of keeping the discussion focused and not
> > cluttering
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> discussion thread I would suggest to split the detailed
> > reporting
> > > >>> for
> > > >>>>>>>> reusing JVMs to a separate thread and cross linking it from
> > here.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > > >>>>>>>> Till
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 1:36 PM Chesnay Schepler <
> > > >>> chesnay@apache.org>
> > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Update:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> TL;DR: table-planner is a good candidate for enabling fork
> > reuse
> > > >>> right
> > > >>>>>>>>> away, while flink-tests has the potential for huge savings,
> but
> > > we
> > > >>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>> to figure out some issues first.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Build link:
> > https://travis-ci.org/zentol/flink/builds/572659220
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> 4/8 profiles failed.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> No speedup in libraries, python, blink_planner, 7 minutes
> saved
> > > in
> > > >>>>>>>>> libraries (table-planner).
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> The kafka and connectors profiles both fail in kafka tests
> due
> > to
> > > >>>>>>>>> producer leaks, and no speed up could be confirmed so far:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> java.lang.AssertionError: Detected producer leak. Thread
> name:
> > > >>>>>>>>> kafka-producer-network-thread | producer-239
> > > >>>>>>>>> at org.junit.Assert.fail(Assert.java:88)
> > > >>>>>>>>> at
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> org.apache.flink.streaming.connectors.kafka.FlinkKafkaProducer011ITCase.checkProducerLeak(FlinkKafkaProducer011ITCase.java:677)
> > > >>>>>>>>> at
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> org.apache.flink.streaming.connectors.kafka.FlinkKafkaProducer011ITCase.testFlinkKafkaProducer011FailBeforeNotify(FlinkKafkaProducer011ITCase.java:210)
> > > >>>>>>>>> The tests profile failed due to various errors in migration
> > > tests:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Did not see the
> expected
> > > >>>>>>>> accumulator
> > > >>>>>>>>> results within time limit.
> > > >>>>>>>>> at
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> org.apache.flink.test.migration.TypeSerializerSnapshotMigrationITCase.testSavepoint(TypeSerializerSnapshotMigrationITCase.java:141)
> > > >>>>>>>>> *However*, a normal tests run takes 40 minutes, while this
> one
> > > >>> above
> > > >>>>>>>>> failed after 19 minutes and is only missing the migration
> tests
> > > >>> (which
> > > >>>>>>>>> currently need 6-7 minutes). So we could save somewhere
> between
> > > 15
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>> 20
> > > >>>>>>>>> minutes here.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Finally, the misc profiles fails in YARN:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> java.lang.AssertionError
> > > >>>>>>>>> at
> > > >>> org.apache.flink.yarn.YARNITCase.setup(YARNITCase.java:64)
> > > >>>>>>>>> No significant speedup could be observed in other modules;
> for
> > > >>>>>>>>> flink-yarn-tests we can maybe get a minute or 2 out of it.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On 16/08/2019 10:43, Chesnay Schepler wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> There appears to be a general agreement that 1) should be
> > looked
> > > >>>>> into;
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I've setup a branch with fork reuse being enabled for all
> > tests;
> > > >>> will
> > > >>>>>>>>>> report back the results.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On 15/08/2019 09:38, Chesnay Schepler wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> improving our build times is a hot topic at the moment so
> > let's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> discuss the different ways how they could be reduced.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Current state:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> First up, let's look at some numbers:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 1 full build currently consumes 5h of build time total
> > ("total
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> time"), and in the ideal case takes about 1h20m ("run
> time")
> > to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> complete from start to finish. The run time may fluctuate
> of
> > > >>> course
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> depending on the current Travis load. This applies both to
> > > >>> builds on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> the Apache and flink-ci Travis.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> At the time of writing, the current queue time for PR jobs
> > > >>>>> (reminder:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> running on flink-ci) is about 30 minutes (which basically
> > means
> > > >>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> we are processing builds at the rate that they come in),
> > > however
> > > >>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> are in an admittedly quiet period right now.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2 weeks ago the queue times on flink-ci peaked at around
> 5-6h
> > > as
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> everyone was scrambling to get their changes merged in time
> > for
> > > >>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> feature freeze.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> (Note: Recently optimizations where added to ci-bot where
> > > pending
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> builds are canceled if a new commit was pushed to the PR or
> > the
> > > >>> PR
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> was closed, which should prove especially useful during the
> > > rush
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> hours we see before feature-freezes.)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Past approaches
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Over the years we have done rather few things to improve
> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> situation (hence our current predicament).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Beyond the sporadic speedup of some tests, the only notable
> > > >>>>> reduction
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> in total build times was the introduction of cron jobs,
> which
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> consolidated the per-commit matrix from 4 configurations
> > > >>> (different
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> scala/hadoop versions) to 1.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> The separation into multiple build profiles was only a
> > > >>> work-around
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> for the 50m limit on Travis. Running tests in parallel has
> > the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> obvious potential of reducing run time, but we're currently
> > > >>> hitting
> > > >>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> hard limit since a few modules (flink-tests, flink-runtime,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> flink-table-planner-blink) are so loaded with tests that
> they
> > > >>> nearly
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> consume an entire profile by themselves (and thus no
> further
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> splitting is possible).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> The rework that introduced stages, at the time of
> > introduction,
> > > >>> did
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> also not provide a speed up, although this changed slightly
> > > once
> > > >>>>> more
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> profiles were added and some optimizations to the caching
> > have
> > > >>> been
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> made.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Very recently we modified the surefire-plugin configuration
> > for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> flink-table-planner-blink to reuse JVM forks for IT cases,
> > > >>> providing
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> a significant speedup (18 minutes!). So far we have not
> seen
> > > any
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> negative consequences.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Suggestions
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> This is a list of /all /suggestions for reducing run/total
> > > times
> > > >>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> I have seen recently (in other words, they aren't
> necessarily
> > > >>> mine
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> nor may I agree with all of them).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Enable JVM reuse for IT cases in more modules.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> * We've seen significant speedups in the blink
> planner,
> > > and
> > > >>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> should be applicable for all modules. However, I
> > presume
> > > >>>>>>>> there's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> a reason why we disabled JVM reuse (information on
> > this
> > > >>> would
> > > >>>>>>>> be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> appreciated)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 2. Custom differential build scripts
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> * Setup custom scripts for determining which modules
> > > might be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> affected by change, and manipulate the splits
> > > accordingly.
> > > >>>>> This
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> approach is conceptually quite straight-forward, but
> > has
> > > >>>>> limits
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> since it has to be pessimistic; i.e. a change in
> > > flink-core
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> _must_ result in testing all modules.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 3. Only run smoke tests when PR is opened, run heavy tests
> on
> > > >>>>> demand.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> * With the introduction of the ci-bot we now have
> > > >>> significantly
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> more options on how to handle PR builds. One option
> > > could
> > > >>> be
> > > >>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> only run basic tests when the PR is created (which
> may
> > > be
> > > >>>>> only
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> modified modules, or all unit tests, or another
> > low-cost
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> scheme), and then have a committer trigger other
> > builds
> > > >>> (full
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> test run, e2e tests, etc...) on demand.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 4. Move more tests into cron builds
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> * The budget version of 3); move certain tests that
> are
> > > >>> either
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> expensive (like some runtime tests that take
> minutes)
> > > or in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> rarely modified modules (like gelly) into cron jobs.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 5. Gradle
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> * Gradle was brought up a few times for it's built-in
> > > support
> > > >>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> differential builds; basically providing 2) without
> > the
> > > >>>>>>>> overhead
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> of maintaining additional scripts.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> * To date no PoC was provided that shows it working in
> > > our CI
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> environment (i.e., handling splits & caching etc).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> * This is the most disruptive change by a fair margin,
> > as
> > > it
> > > >>>>>>>> would
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> affect the entire project, developers and
> potentially
> > > users
> > > >>>>> (f
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> they build from source).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> 6. CI service
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> * Our current artifact caching setup on Travis is
> > > basically a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> hack; we're basically abusing the Travis cache,
> which
> > is
> > > >>>>> meant
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> for long-term caching, to ship build artifacts
> across
> > > jobs.
> > > >>>>>>>> It's
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> brittle at times due to timing/visibility issues and
> > on
> > > >>>>>>>> branches
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> the cleanup processes can interfere with running
> > > builds. It
> > > >>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> also not as effective as it could be.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> * There are CI services that provide build artifact
> > > caching
> > > >>> out
> > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> the box, which could be useful for us.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> * To date, no PoC for using another CI service has
> been
> > > >>>>> provided.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>
> > >
> > >
> >
>