mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Evans <joseph.ev...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: CI Pipeline Change Proposal
Date Thu, 26 Mar 2020 19:45:57 GMT
The sanity-lint check pulls a docker image cache, builds a new container
and runs inside. The docker setup is taking around 3 minutes, at least:

http://jenkins.mxnet-ci.amazon-ml.com/blue/organizations/jenkins/mxnet-validation%2Fsanity/detail/master/1764/pipeline/39

We could improve this by not having to build a new container every time.
Also, our CI containers are huge so it takes awhile to pull them down. I'm
sure we could reduce the size by being a bit more careful in building them
too.

Joe

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:33 PM Marco de Abreu <marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Do you know what's driving the duration for sanity? It used to be 50 sec
> execution and 60 sec preparation.
>
> -Marco
>
> Joe Evans <joseph.evans@gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 26. März 2020, 20:31:
>
> > Thanks Marco and Aaron for your input.
> >
> > > Can you show by how much the duration will increase?
> >
> > The average sanity build time is around 10min, while the average build
> time
> > for unix-cpu is about 2 hours, so the entire build pipeline would
> increase
> > by 2 hours if we required both unix-cpu and sanity to complete in
> parallel.
> >
> > I took a look at the CloudWatch metrics we're saving for Jenkins jobs.
> Here
> > is the failure rate per job, based on builds triggered by PRs in the past
> > year. As you can see, the sanity build failure is still fairly high and
> > would save a lot of unneeded build jobs.
> >
> > Job Successful Failed Failure Rate
> > sanity 6900 2729 28.34%
> > unix-cpu 4268 4786 52.86%
> > unix-gpu 3686 5637 60.46%
> > centos-cpu 6777 2809 29.30%
> > centos-gpu 6318 3350 34.65%
> > clang 7879 1588 16.77%
> > edge 7654 1933 20.16%
> > miscellaneous 8090 1510 15.73%
> > website 7226 2179 23.17%
> > windows-cpu 6084 3621 37.31%
> > windows-gpu 5191 4721 47.63%
> >
> > We can start by requiring only the sanity job to complete before
> triggering
> > the rest, and collect data to decide if it makes sense to change it from
> > there. Any objections to this approach?
> >
> > Thanks.
> > Joe
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 9:35 AM Marco de Abreu <marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Back then I have created a system which exports all Jenkins results to
> > > cloud watch. It does not include individual test results but rather
> > stages
> > > and jobs. The data for the sanity check should be available there.
> > >
> > > Something I'd also be curious about is the percentage of the failures
> in
> > > one run. Speak, if a commit failed, have there been multiple jobs
> failing
> > > (indicating an error in the code) or only one or two (indicating
> > > flakyness). This should give us a proper understanding of how
> unnecessary
> > > these runs really are.
> > >
> > > -Marck
> > >
> > > Aaron Markham <aaron.s.markham@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 25. März
> 2020,
> > > 16:53:
> > >
> > > > +1 for sanity check - that's fast.
> > > > -1 for unix-cpu - that's slow and can just hang.
> > > >
> > > > So my suggestion would be to see the data apart - what's the failure
> > > > rate on the sanity check and the unix-cpu? Actually, can we get a
> > > > table of all of the tests with this data?!
> > > > If the sanity check fails... let's say 20% of the time, but only
> takes
> > > > a couple of minutes, then ya, let's stack it and do that one first.
> > > >
> > > > I think unix-cpu needs to be broken apart. It's too complex and fails
> > > > in multiple ways. Isolate the brittle parts. Then we can
> > > > restart/disable those as needed, while all of the other parts pass
> and
> > > > don't have to be rerun.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 1:32 AM Marco de Abreu <
> > marco.g.abreu@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > We had this structure in the past and the community was bothered
by
> > CI
> > > > > taking more time, thus we moved to the current model with
> everything
> > > > > parallelized. We'd basically revert that then.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you show by how much the duration will increase?
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, we have zero test parallelisation, speak we are running one
> > test
> > > on
> > > > > 72 core machines (although multiple workers). Wouldn't it be way
> more
> > > > > efficient to add parallelisation and thus heavily reduce the time
> > spent
> > > > on
> > > > > the tasks instead of staggering?
> > > > >
> > > > > I feel concerned that these measures to save cost are paid in the
> > form
> > > > of a
> > > > > worse user experience. I see a big potential to save costs by
> > > increasing
> > > > > efficiency while actually improving the user experience due to CI
> > being
> > > > > faster.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Marco
> > > > >
> > > > > Joe Evans <joseph.evans@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 25. März
2020,
> > > 04:58:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First, I just wanted to introduce myself to the MXNet community.
> > I’m
> > > > Joe
> > > > > > and will be working with Chai and the AWS team to improve some
> > issues
> > > > > > around MXNet CI. One of our goals is to reduce the costs
> associated
> > > > with
> > > > > > running MXNet CI. The task I’m working on now is this issue:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17802
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Proposal: Staggered Jenkins CI pipeline
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Based on data collected from Jenkins, around 55% of the time
when
> > the
> > > > > > mxnet-validation CI build is triggered by a PR, either the sanity
> > or
> > > > > > unix-cpu builds fail. When either of these builds fail, it
> doesn’t
> > > make
> > > > > > sense to run the rest of the pipelines and utilize all those
> > > resources
> > > > if
> > > > > > we’ve already identified a build or unit test failure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We are proposing changing the MXNet Jenkins CI pipeline by
> > requiring
> > > > the
> > > > > > *sanity* and *unix-cpu* builds to complete and pass tests
> > > successfully
> > > > > > before starting the other build pipelines (centos-cpu/gpu,
> > unix-gpu,
> > > > > > windows-cpu/gpu, etc.) Once the sanity builds successfully
> > complete,
> > > > the
> > > > > > remaining build pipelines will be triggered and run in parallel
> (as
> > > > they
> > > > > > currently do.) The purpose of this change is to identify faulty
> > code
> > > or
> > > > > > compatibility issues early and prevent further execution of
CI
> > > builds.
> > > > This
> > > > > > will increase the time required to test a PR, but will prevent
> > > > unnecessary
> > > > > > builds from running.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone have any concerns with this change or suggestions?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joe Evans
> > > > > >
> > > > > > joseph.evans@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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