Mailing-List: contact dev-help@mxnet.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMGgKDDYBRL7Zf_JB8R0WfZUN9Qdk2gse-dqMqEZKzkxUmAEYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABC2O9rNcmnuuEPHTYuXc3bHnuYvFYoTqF6ySQKfiB8OOFKWOw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABC2O9rjGCth2nY0WbT-6zq7C2WjRXKunmRQTWMaS9aGTJKbhg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAjLvt=2OHV+iRYEZr0a_fFrSjsN0=UNPX5=VUpDKDGZnSQSGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACZfuxaU3OXGeX=SDOGfKz6rd0YJYYWmdE2om_7E=z4CYHO17Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgAAfeAQiLEiK5WPf1X5RsBVADcemyekFiiYRH19ihyTZCUSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAjLvtk3kOEDZRZYvWo8g0sULP3Whyr5+yxeKOoENfngFUnEoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgAAfeCoF2x4=e45jPZ1UJcOhu=5heR2jhHyMkc4n78N53EZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAjLvtmmW3o1iA-CC9AdAzdJdviz0gm=Xpg6b9Pzghrfc3iMYg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgAAfcMUCU1Y8NGRjAwxwhg8_BAdBVoirL8Dg3SGeAYSUEmyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAnCdEDx3sMkZQaJhnS3y494d+L1bpi8sEW6dUv+dTH+Ssn8Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH23AErBZB9fRKXpwka-jayRaX4gMKi9zQ1YAUWYPrrTy2gqhw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAC_CU1hQYxfyFB+2GFB5fznnO+dJ0SLRBC-GJo59KbV8CuuS8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABC2O9rw9oV9aTEJHvRvgeVz1XVKytVZUKQPQ6y8TEW+XHJ4QA@mail.gmail.com>
 <b321e048-527a-52f1-5057-fef2f5e79e06@googlemail.com> <CAMGgKDDYBRL7Zf_JB8R0WfZUN9Qdk2gse-dqMqEZKzkxUmAEYA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.lists@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:49:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CAC_CU1iC+fnxY5f-+EKpRQEU=Z5CevGupVp_JDZMxLuGQkG=dg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Stabilizing Apache MXNet CI build system
To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113cc7348668d7055c737110"
archived-at: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 13:49:50 -0000

--001a113cc7348668d7055c737110
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks for your input guys, I think we are all on a good track to get this
fixed. I'm confident that Meghna and Marco are going to drive this to
success. We are collecting ideas and requirements for the document on how
we will revamp the testing infrastructure. My only question right now is
where to store this document to collaborate. I don't seem to have
permissions in confluence to edit the wiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Continuous+Integration

Should we otherwise use a shared google doc or a github wiki or how?

Please advice.

Pedro.

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Meghna Baijal <meghnabaijal2017@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Sandeep for driving this discussion. I am also in contact with Ped=
ro
> and his team to include their requirements.
> And thank you Sebastian, I will let you know!
>
> Meghna
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Sebastian <ssc.open@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > @meghana @pedro let me know if you need someone with a mentor hat to op=
en
> > tickets or send mail to infra, happy to help here.
> >
> > Best,
> > Sebastian
> >
> >
> > On 25.10.2017 23:18, sandeep krishnamurthy wrote:
> >
> >> 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 u=
p
> >> 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 pa=
ss
> >>> 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 (incubatin=
g)
> >>>> 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 =E2=80=94 it=E2=80=
=99s 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:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>     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:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>

--001a113cc7348668d7055c737110--