We don't loose pip by hosting on S3. We just don't host nightly releases on Pypi servers and mirror them to several hundred mirrors immediately after each build is published which is very expensive for the Pypi project.. People can still install the nightly builds with pip by specifying the -f option.
Uploading weekly releases to Pypi will reduce the cost for Pypi by ~75% [1]. It may be acceptable to Pypi, but does it make sense for us? I'm not convinced weekly release on Pypi is a good idea. Consider one release is buggy, users will need to wait for 7 days for a fix. It doesn't provide good user experience. If someone has a stronger conviction about the value of weekly releases on Pypi, that person shall please go ahead and propose it in a separate discussion thread. Currently we don't have generally working nightly builds to Pypi and as a matter of fact we know that we can't have them due to Pypi's policy and our apparent need for large binaries. Given this fact and that no objection was raised by 2019-12-05 at 05:42 UTC, I conclude we have lazy consensus on stopping upload attempts of nightly builds to Pypi. With consensus established, we can change the CI job to stop trying to upload the nightly builds and then request Pypi to increase the limit. Then we have one less blocker for the 1.6 release. Best regards Leonard [1]: Lower cost due to less releases, but higher cost due to 500MB -> 800MB limit increase. Assuming that the limit increase translates into actually larger binaries. > On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 22:20 +0100, Marco de Abreu wrote: > Are weekly releases an option? It was brought up as concern that we might > lose pip as a pretty common distribution channel where people consume > nightly builds. I don't feel like that concern has been properly addressed > so far. > > -Marco > > Lausen, Leonard <lau...@amazon.com.invalid> schrieb am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019, > 04:09: > > > As a simple POC to test distribution, you can try installing MXNet based on > > these 3 URLs: > > > > pip install --no-cache-dir > > > > https://mxnet-dev.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > pip install --no-cache-dir > > > > https://mxnet-dev.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > pip install --no-cache-dir https://d19zq12jzu4w95.cloudfront.net/ > > mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > < > > https://d19zq12jzu4w95.cloudfront.net/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > > > > > > where --no-cache-dir prevents caching the downloaded file, for the purpose > > of > > testing. (cu101 chosen based on large size) > > > > The first URL uses standard S3 bucket in US. The second uses S3 Accelerate > > based > > on CloudFront CDN. And the third uses CloudFront CDN. I'm adding the third > > URL, > > as S3 Accelerate may or may not use all new CloudFront endpoints yet. > > > > Regarding voting: Uploading to Pypi is currently impossible, which is a > > reality > > (so there is no option to continue as we do currently). Pypi folks > > indicated > > they will unblock our uploads to Pypi once we stop uploading nightly > > releases > > and taking up 20% of their ressources [1]. > > > > If there are any shortcomings or problems identified with uploading to S3, > > we > > can work to address them. But for now, status quo is broken and this seems > > the > > only solution addressing Pypi's problem. > > > > I don't mind if you state that you object to lazy consensus and start a > > vote. If > > your "maybe [...] start a proper vote" was supposed to be an objection to > > lazy > > consensus, please state so clearly (I'm not sure if "maybe" qualifies as > > objection). Though I think it only makes sense with at least 2 options to > > vote > > on. Status quo is not a meaningful option, as it is already broken. > > > > Best regards > > Leonard > > > > [1]: https://github.com/pypa/pypi-support/issues/50#issuecomment-560479706 > > > > On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 19:28 +0100, Marco de Abreu wrote: > > > Excellent! Could we maybe come up with a POC and a quick writeup and then > > > start a proper vote after everyone verified that it covers their > > use-cases? > > > -Marco > > > > > > Sheng Zha <zhash...@apache.org> schrieb am Di., 3. Dez. 2019, 19:24: > > > > > > > Yes, there is. We can also make it easier to access by using a > > > > geo-location based DNS server so that China users are directed to that > > > > local mirror. The rest of the world is already covered by the global > > > > cloudfront. > > > > > > > > -sz > > > > > > > > On 2019/12/03 18:22:22, Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Isn't there an s3 endpoint in Beijing? > > > > > > > > > > It seems like this topic still warrants some discussion and thus I'd > > > > > > > > prefer > > > > > if we don't move forward with lazy consensus. > > > > > > > > > > -Marco > > > > > > > > > > Tao Lv <mutou...@gmail.com> schrieb am Di., 3. Dez. 2019, 14:31: > > > > > > > > > > > * For pypi, we can use mirrors. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:28 PM Tao Lv <mutou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > As we have many users in China, I'm considering the > > accessibility of > > > > S3. > > > > > > > For pip, we can mirrors. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:24 PM Lausen, Leonard > > > > > > > > <lau...@amazon.com.invalid > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to remind everyone that lazy consensus is assumed > > if no > > > > > > > > objections > > > > > > > > are raised before 2019-12-05 at 05:42 UTC. There has been some > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion > > > > > > > > about > > > > > > > > the proposal, but to my understanding no objections were > > raised. > > > > > > > > If the proposal is accepted, MXNet releases would be installed > > via > > > > > > > > pip install mxnet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And release candidates via > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pip install --pre mxnet > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (or with the respective cuda version specifier appended etc.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To obtain releases built automatically from the master branch, > > users > > > > > > > > would need > > > > > > > > to specify something like "-f > > > > > > > > http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-X/nightly.html"; option to > > pip. > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > Leonard > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 05:42 +0000, Lausen, Leonard wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi MXNet Community, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > since more than 2 months our binary Python nightly releases > > > > > > > > published > > > > > > > > on Pypi > > > > > > > > > are broken. The problem is that our binaries exceed Pypi's > > size > > > > limit. > > > > > > > > > Decreasing the binary size by adding compression breaks > > > > > > > > third-party > > > > > > > > libraries > > > > > > > > > loading libmxnet.so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16193 > > > > > > > > > Sheng requested Pypi to increase their size limit: > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/pypa/pypi-support/issues/50 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently "the biggest cost for PyPI from [the many MXNet > > binaries > > > > > > with > > > > > > > > > nightly > > > > > > > > > release to Pypi] is the bandwidth consumed when several > > hundred > > > > > > mirrors > > > > > > > > > attempt > > > > > > > > > to mirror each release immediately after it's published". So > > Pypi > > > > is > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > inclined to allow us to upload even larger binaries on a > > nightly > > > > > > > > schedule. > > > > > > > > > Their compromise is to allow it on a weekly cadence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I would like the community to revisit the necessity > > of > > > > > > > > releasing pre- > > > > > > > > > release binaries to Pypi on a nightly (or weekly) cadence. > > > > > > > > Instead, we > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > release nightly binaries ONLY to a public S3 bucket and > > instruct > > > > users > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > install from there. On our side, we only need to prepare a > > html > > > > > > > > document that > > > > > > > > > contains links to all released nightly binaries. > > > > > > > > > Finally users will install the nightly releases via > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pip install --pre mxnet-cu101 -f > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-cu101/ > > > > > > > > > nightly.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pip install --pre mxnet-cu101 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course proper releases and release candidates should > > still be > > > > made > > > > > > > > > available > > > > > > > > > via Pypi. Thus releases would be installed via > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pip install mxnet-cu101 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And release candidates via > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pip install --pre mxnet-cu101 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This will substantially reduce the costs of the Pypi project > > and > > > > in > > > > > > fact > > > > > > > > > matches > > > > > > > > > the installation experience provided by PyTorch. I don't > > think the > > > > > > > > benefit of > > > > > > > > > not including "-f > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-cu101/nightly.html"; > > > > > > > > > matches the costs we currently externalize to the Pypi team. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This suggestion seems uncontroversial to me. Thus I would > > like to > > > > > > start > > > > > > > > lazy > > > > > > > > > consensus. If there are no objections, I will assume lazy > > > > > > > > consensus on > > > > > > > > > stopping > > > > > > > > > nightly releases to Pypi in 72hrs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > > > > > Leonard
