mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From sandeep krishnamurthy <sandeep.krishn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system
Date Wed, 25 Oct 2017 21:18:24 GMT
Thank you, everyone, for the discussion, proposal, and the vote.

Here majority community members see current CI system for Apache MXNet is
having issues in scaling and diverse test environments. And the common
suggestion is to have a separate CI setup for Apache MXNet.

Following are the next steps:

1. Meghana proposed she would like to take the lead on this and come up
with an initial tech design write up covering requirements, use-cases,
alternate solutions and a proposed solution on how we could set up the CI
system for MXNet.
2. This tech design will be reviewed in the community and following that,
collaborate with Infra team and mentors to complete setup in the
integration of the new system with Repo and Website and more.

@Pedro Larry - We should sync up on understanding how we can unify the set
up you have for various devices and the new set up being proposed and
built. Ideally, we should have a unified CI setup for the project
accessible to the community.

Regards,
Sandeep

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 7:29 AM, Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1
>
> We (with Kellen and Marco) are already working on a CI system that verifies
> MXNet on devices, so far a work in progress, but at least we are checking
> that the build is sane on Android, different arm flavors and ubuntu, also
> building PRs. So far we are still working on having the unit tests pass on
> some architectures like Jetson TX2 and ARM / Raspberry PI.
>
> http://ci.mxnet.amazon-ml.com/
>
> Agree with Steffen on creating a document with requirements and high level
> architecture. Also I would like to have quicker feedback and as we
> discussed before, saner unit tests. I think there's a big and nontrivial
> amount of effort required here.
>
> Pedro.
>
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Steffen Rochel <steffenrochel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> > I support Option 1 - Set up separate Jenkins CI build system. While the
> > Apache service is appropriate for some projects, our experience over the
> > last 6 months has not been meeting the needs of the MXNet (incubating)
> > project. AWS has been and will continue provide resources for such
> project.
> > Agree we should create a document summarizing the requirements and high
> > level architecture, which should answer the question of Jenkins or
> > alternative.
> >
> > Steffen
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 6:51 PM shiwen hu <yajiedesign@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > >
> > > 2017-10-21 9:48 GMT+08:00 Chris Olivier <cjolivier01@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > Ok, just looking for anything that can cut a task out if possible. I
> do
> > > > support not using Apache Jenkins server anyMore — it’s really not
> been
> > > > working out for various reasons.  But having a person full time is
> > > > something that Steffen would have to address, I imagine.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:03 PM Mu Li <muli.cmu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I didn't see the clear advantage of CodePipline over pure jenkins,
> > > > because
> > > > > we don't need to deploy here.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Chris Olivier <
> > cjolivier01@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > CodePipeline, then.  You can point it to Jenkins instances.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:49 PM Mu Li <muli.cmu@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > AWS CodeBuild is not an option. It doesn't support GPU
> instances,
> > > mac
> > > > > os
> > > > > > x,
> > > > > > > and windows. Not even mention the edge devices.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Chris Olivier <
> > > > cjolivier01@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why don;t we look into fully managed AWS CodeBuild?
 It
> > maintains
> > > > > > > > everything. It's also compatible with Jenkins.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Tianqi Chen <
> > > > > tqchen@cs.washington.edu
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tianqi
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:39 PM Mu Li <muli.cmu@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It seems that the Apache CI is quite overloaded
these
> days,
> > > and
> > > > > > > MXNet's
> > > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > pipeline is too complex to run there. In
addition, we may
> > > need
> > > > to
> > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > devices, e.g. macpro and rasbperry pi, into
the server,
> and
> > > > more
> > > > > > > tasks
> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > as pip build. It means a lot of requests
to the Infra
> team.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > We can reuse our previous Jenkins server
at
> > > > http://ci.mxnet.io/.
> > > > > > But
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > probably need a dedicate developer to maintain
it.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 1:01 PM, sandeep
krishnamurthy <
> > > > > > > > > > sandeep.krishna98@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hello all,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I am hereby opening up a discussion
thread on how we
> can
> > > > > > stabilize
> > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > MXNet CI build system.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Problems:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ========
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Recently, we have seen following issues
with Apache
> MXNet
> > > CI
> > > > > > build
> > > > > > > > > > systems:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >    1. Apache Jenkins master is overloaded
and we see
> > issues
> > > > > like
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > unable
> > > > > > > > > > >    to trigger builds, difficult to
load and view the
> blue
> > > > ocean
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > > >    Jenkins build status page.
> > > > > > > > > > >    2. We are generating too many request/interaction
on
> > > > Apache
> > > > > > > Infra
> > > > > > > > > > team.
> > > > > > > > > > >       1. Addition/deletion of new slave:
Caused from
> > > scaling
> > > > > > > > activity,
> > > > > > > > > > >       recycling, troubleshooting or
any actions leading
> > to
> > > > > change
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > slave
> > > > > > > > > > >       machines.
> > > > > > > > > > >       2. Plugins / other Jenkins Master
configurations.
> > > > > > > > > > >       3. Experimentation on CI pipelines.
> > > > > > > > > > >    3. Harder to debug and resolve issues
- Since access
> > to
> > > > > master
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > slave
> > > > > > > > > > >    is not with the same community,
it requires Infra
> and
> > > > > > community
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > dive
> > > > > > > > > > >    deep together on all action items.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Possible Solutions:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ==============
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >    1. Can we set up a separate Jenkins
CI build system
> > for
> > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > MXNet
> > > > > > > > > > >    outside Apache Infra?
> > > > > > > > > > >    2. Can we have a separate Jenkins
Master in Apache
> > Infra
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > MXNet?
> > > > > > > > > > >    3. Review design of current setup,
refine and fill
> the
> > > > gaps.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > @ Mentors/Infra team/Community:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ==========================
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Please provide your suggestions on
how we can proceed
> > > further
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > stabilizing the CI build systems for
MXNet.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Also, if the community decides on separate
Jenkins CI
> > build
> > > > > > system,
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > important points should be taken care
of apart from the
> > > > below:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >    1. Community being able to access
the build page for
> > > build
> > > > > > > > statuses.
> > > > > > > > > > >    2. Committers being able to login
with apache
> > > credentials.
> > > > > > > > > > >    3. Hook setup from apache/incubator-mxnet
repo to
> > > Jenkins
> > > > > > > master.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Irrespective of the solution we come
up, I think we
> > should
> > > > > > > initiate a
> > > > > > > > > > > technical design discussion on how
to setup the CI
> build
> > > > > system.
> > > > > > > > > > Probably 1
> > > > > > > > > > > or 2 pager documents with the architecture
and review
> > with
> > > > > Infra
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > community members.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ***There were few proposal and discussion
on the slack
> > > > channel,
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > reach
> > > > > > > > > > > wider community members, moving that
discussion
> formally
> > to
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My Proposal: Option 1 - Set up separate
Jenkins CI
> build
> > > > > system.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Sandeep
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Sandeep Krishnamurthy
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Sandeep Krishnamurthy

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message