I looked at the log but I could not figure what is causing the timeout
because the gradle scan links are missing. I sampled a few of the
successful jobs, It seems like python 3.7 and python 2 are running 3 tests
in serial {interactive, py37cython, py37gcp} and {docs, py27cython,
py27gcp} respectively. These two versions are pushing the total time
because other variants are now only running {cython, gcp} versions.I suggest breaking up docs, and interactive into 2 separate suites of their own. docs is actually faster than interactive,just separating that out to a new suite might help. Interactive was recently added (https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9741). +Ning Kang <ni...@google.com> could you separate interactive to new suite? Ahmet On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:09 AM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> wrote: > Just saw another 2-hour timeout: > https://builds.apache.org/job/beam_PreCommit_Python_Commit/9440/ , so > perhaps we're not out of the woods yet (though in general things have > been a lot better). > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 10:52 AM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > > > > GCP tests are already on separate locations. IO related tests are under > /sdks/python/apache_beam/io/gcp and Dataflow related tests are under > sdks/python/apache_beam/runners/dataflow. It should be a matter of changing > gradle files to run either one of the base tests or GCP tests depending on > the types of changes. I do not expect this to have any material impact on > the precommit times because these two test suites take about exactly the > same time to complete. > > > > #9985 is merged now. Precommit times on master branch dropped to ~1h 20 > for the last 5 runs. > > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 10:12 AM David Cavazos <dcava...@google.com> > wrote: > >> > >> +1 to moving the GCP tests outside of core. If there are issues that > only show up on GCP tests but not in core, it might be an indication that > there needs to be another test in core covering that, but I think that > should be pretty rare. > >> > >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 8:33 PM Kenneth Knowles <k...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> +1 to moving forward with this > >>> > >>> Could we move GCP tests outside the core? Then only code changes > touches/affecting GCP would cause them to run in precommit. Could still run > them in postcommit in their own suite. If the core has reasonably stable > abstractions that the connectors are built on, this should not change > coverage much. > >>> > >>> Kenn > >>> > >>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:55 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> PR for the proposed change: https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9985 > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:35 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> +1 > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 12:09 PM Robert Bradshaw <rober...@google.com> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +1, this seems like a good step with a clear win. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 12:06 PM Ahmet Altay <al...@google.com> > wrote: > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > Python precommits are still timing out on #9925. I am guessing > that means this change would not be enough. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > I am proposing cutting down the number of test variants we run in > precommits. Currently for each version we ran the following variants > serially: > >>>>>> > - base: Runs all unit tests with tox > >>>>>> > - Cython: Installs cython and runs all unit tests as base > version. The original purpose was to ensure that tests pass with or without > cython. There is probably a huge overlap with base. (IIRC only a few coders > have different slow vs fast tests.) > >>>>>> > - GCP: Installs GCP dependencies and tests all base + additional > gcp specific tests. The original purpose was to ensure that GCP is an > optional component and all non-GCP tests still works without GCP components. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > We can reduce the list to cython + GCP tests only. This will > cover the same group of tests and will check that tests pass with or > without cython or GCP dependencies. This could reduce the precommit time by > ~30 minutes. > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > What do you think? > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > Ahmet > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 11:15 AM Robert Bradshaw < > rober...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9925 > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:24 AM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> > wrote: > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> >> > I don't have the bandwidth right now to tackle this. Feel free > to take it. > >>>>>> >> > > >>>>>> >> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 10:16 AM Robert Bradshaw < > rober...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> The Python SDK does as well. These calls are coming from > >>>>>> >> >> to_runner_api, is_stateful_dofn, and validate_stateful_dofn > which are > >>>>>> >> >> invoked once per pipene or bundle. They are, however, > surprisingly > >>>>>> >> >> expensive. Even memoizing across those three calls should > save a > >>>>>> >> >> significant amount of time. Udi, did you want to tackle this? > >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> Looking at the profile, Pipeline.to_runner_api() is being > called 30 > >>>>>> >> >> times in this test, and [Applied]PTransform.to_fn_api being > called > >>>>>> >> >> 3111 times, so that in itself might be interesting to > investigate. > >>>>>> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 8:26 AM Robert Burke < > rob...@frantil.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> >> > > >>>>>> >> >> > As does the Go SDK. Invokers are memoized and when possible > code is generated to avoid reflection. > >>>>>> >> >> > > >>>>>> >> >> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019, 6:46 AM Kenneth Knowles < > k...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> >> Noting for the benefit of the thread archive in case > someone goes digging and wonders if this affects other SDKs: the Java SDK > memoizes DoFnSignatures and generated DoFnInvoker classes. > >>>>>> >> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> >> Kenn > >>>>>> >> >> >> > >>>>>> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 6:59 PM Udi Meiri < > eh...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> Re: #9283 slowing down tests, ideas for slowness: > >>>>>> >> >> >>> 1. I added a lot of test cases, some with locally run > pipelines. > >>>>>> >> >> >>> 2. The PR somehow changed how coders are selected, and > now we're using less efficient ones. > >>>>>> >> >> >>> 3. New dependency funcsigs is slowing things down? (py2 > only) > >>>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> I ran "pytest -k PipelineAnalyzerTest --profile-svg" on > 2.7 and 3.7 and got these cool graphs (attached). > >>>>>> >> >> >>> 2.7: core:294:get_function_arguments takes 56.66% of CPU > time (IIUC), gets called ~230k times > >>>>>> >> >> >>> 3.7: core:294:get_function_arguments 30.88%, gets called > ~200k times > >>>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> After memoization of get_function_args_defaults: > >>>>>> >> >> >>> 2.7: core:294:get_function_arguments 20.02% > >>>>>> >> >> >>> 3.7: core:294:get_function_arguments 8.11% > >>>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 5:38 PM Pablo Estrada < > pabl...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> >> >>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>> *not deciles, but 9-percentiles : ) > >>>>>> >> >> >>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 5:31 PM Pablo Estrada < > pabl...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> I've ran the tests in Python 2 (without cython), and > used a utility to track runtime for each test method. I found some of the > following things: > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> - Total test methods run: 2665 > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> - Total test runtime: 990 seconds > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> - Deciles of time spent: > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> - 1949 tests run in the first 9% of time > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> - 173 in the 9-18% rang3e > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> - 130 in the 18-27% range > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> - 95 in the 27-36% range > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> - 77 > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> - 66 > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> - 55 > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> - 46 > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> - 37 > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> - 24 > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> - 13 tests run in the last 9% of time. This > represents about 1 minute and a half. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> We may be able to look at the slowest X tests, and get > gradual improvements from there. Although it seems .. not dramatic ones : ) > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> FWIW I uploaded the results here: > https://storage.googleapis.com/apache-beam-website-pull-requests/python-tests/nosetimes.json > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> The slowest 13 tests were: > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > [('apache_beam.runners.interactive.pipeline_analyzer_test.PipelineAnalyzerTest.test_basic', > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> 5.253582000732422), > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.interactive.interactive_runner_test.InteractiveRunnerTest.test_wordcount', > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> 7.907713890075684), > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.io.gcp.bigquery_test.PipelineBasedStreamingInsertTest.test_failure_has_same_insert_ids', > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> 5.237942934036255), > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.transforms.combiners_test.CombineTest.test_global_sample', > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> 5.563946008682251), > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.worker.sideinputs_test.EmulatedCollectionsTest.test_large_iterable_values', > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> 5.680700063705444), > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.io.parquetio_test.TestParquet.test_sink_transform_multiple_row_group', > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> 6.111238956451416), > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.worker.statesampler_test.StateSamplerTest.test_basic_sampler', > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> 6.007534980773926), > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.interactive.interactive_runner_test.InteractiveRunnerTest.test_basic', > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> 13.993916988372803), > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.interactive.pipeline_analyzer_test.PipelineAnalyzerTest.test_read_cache_expansion', > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> 6.3383049964904785), > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.interactive.pipeline_analyzer_test.PipelineAnalyzerTest.test_word_count', > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> 9.157485008239746), > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.runners.portability.portable_runner_test.PortableRunnerTestWithSubprocesses.test_pardo_side_and_main_outputs', > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> 5.191173076629639), > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.io.vcfio_test.VcfSourceTest.test_pipeline_read_file_pattern_large', > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> 6.2221620082855225), > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > ('apache_beam.io.fileio_test.WriteFilesTest.test_streaming_complex_timing', > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> 7.7187910079956055)] > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 3:10 PM Pablo Estrada < > pabl...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> I have written > https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9910 to reduce FnApiRunnerTest > variations. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> I'm not in a rush to merge, but rather happy to start > a discussion. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> I'll also try to figure out if there are other tests > slowing down the suite significantly. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Best > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> -P. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 7:41 PM Valentyn Tymofieiev < > valen...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> Thanks, Brian. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> +Udi Meiri > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> As next step, it would be good to know whether > slowdown is caused by tests in this PR, or its effect on other tests, and > to confirm that only Python 2 codepaths were affected. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 6:35 PM Brian Hulette < > bhule...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> I did a bisect based on the runtime of `./gradlew > :sdks:python:test-suites:tox:py2:testPy2Gcp` around the commits between 9/1 > and 9/15 to see if I could find the source of the spike that happened > around 9/6. It looks like it was due to PR#9283 [1]. I thought maybe this > search would reveal some mis-guided configuration change, but as far as I > can tell 9283 just added a well-tested feature. I don't think there's > anything to learn from that... I just wanted to circle back about it in > case others are curious about that spike. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> I'm +1 on bumping some FnApiRunner configurations. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Brian > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9283 > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 4:49 PM Pablo Estrada < > pabl...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> I think it makes sense to remove some of the extra > FnApiRunner configurations. Perhaps some of the multiworkers and some of > the grpc versions? > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Best > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> -P. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 12:27 PM Robert Bradshaw < > rober...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> It looks like fn_api_runner_test.py is quite > expensive, taking 10-15+ > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> minutes on each version of Python. This test > consists of a base class > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> that is basically a validates runner suite, and is > then run in several > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> configurations, many more of which (including some > expensive ones) > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> have been added lately. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> class FnApiRunnerTest(unittest.TestCase): > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> class FnApiRunnerTestWithGrpc(FnApiRunnerTest): > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> class > FnApiRunnerTestWithGrpcMultiThreaded(FnApiRunnerTest): > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> class > FnApiRunnerTestWithDisabledCaching(FnApiRunnerTest): > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> class > FnApiRunnerTestWithMultiWorkers(FnApiRunnerTest): > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> class > FnApiRunnerTestWithGrpcAndMultiWorkers(FnApiRunnerTest): > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> class > FnApiRunnerTestWithBundleRepeat(FnApiRunnerTest): > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> class > FnApiRunnerTestWithBundleRepeatAndMultiWorkers(FnApiRunnerTest): > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> I'm not convinced we need to run all of these > permutations, or at > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> least not all tests in all permutations. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:57 AM Valentyn > Tymofieiev > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> <valen...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > I took another look at this and precommit ITs > are already running in parallel, albeit in the same suite. However it > appears Python precommits became slower, especially Python 2 precommits [35 > min per suite x 3 suites], see [1]. Not sure yet what caused the increase, > but precommits used to be faster. Perhaps we have added a slow test or a > lot of new tests. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > [1] > https://scans.gradle.com/s/jvcw5fpqfc64k/timeline?task=ancsbov425524 > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 4:53 PM Ahmet Altay < > al...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> Ack. Separating precommit ITs to a different > suite sounds good. Anyone is interested in doing that? > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 2:41 PM Valentyn > Tymofieiev <valen...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> This should not increase the queue time > substantially, since precommit ITs are running sequentially with precommit > tests, unlike multiple precommit tests which run in parallel to each other. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> The precommit ITs we run are batch and > streaming wordcount tests on Py2 and one Py3 version, so it's not a lot of > tests. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 1:07 PM Ahmet Altay < > al...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> +1 to separating ITs from precommit. Downside > would be, when Chad tried to do something similar [1] it was noted that the > total time to run all precommit tests would increase and also potentially > increase the queue time. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> Another alternative, we could run a smaller > set of IT tests in precommits and run the whole suite as part of post > commit tests. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/9642 > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 12:15 PM Valentyn > Tymofieiev <valen...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> One improvement could be move to Precommit > IT tests into a separate suite from precommit tests, and run it in parallel. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 11:41 AM Brian > Hulette <bhule...@google.com> wrote: > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Python Precommits are taking quite a while > now [1]. Just visually it looks like the average length is 1.5h or so, but > it spikes up to 2h. I've had several precommit runs get aborted due to the > 2 hour limit. > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> It looks like there was a spike up above 1h > back on 9/6 and the duration has been steadily rising since then. Is there > anything we can do about this? > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Brian > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> [1] > http://104.154.241.245/d/_TNndF2iz/pre-commit-test-latency?orgId=1&from=now-90d&to=now&fullscreen&panelId=4 >
