Could you elaborate how a non-Amazonian is able to access, maintain and review the CodeBuild pipeline? How come we've diverted from the community agreed-on standard where the public Jenkins serves for the purpose of testing and releasing MXNet? I'd be curious about the issues you're encountering with Jenkins CI that led to a non-standard solution.
-Marco Skalicky, Sam <sska...@amazon.com.invalid> schrieb am Sa., 7. Dez. 2019, 18:39: > Hi MXNet Community, > > We have been working on getting nightly builds fixed and made available > again. We’ve made another system using AWS CodeBuild & S3 to work around > the problems with Jenkins CI, PyPI, etc. It is currently building all the > flavors and publishing to an S3 bucket here: > > https://us-west-2.console.aws.amazon.com/s3/buckets/apache-mxnet/dist/?region=us-west-2 > > There are folders for each set of nightly builds, try out the wheels > starting today 2019-12-07. Builds start at 1:30am PT (9:30am GMT) and > arrive in the bucket 30min-2hours later. Inside each folder are the wheels > for each flavor of MXNet. Currently we’re only building for linux, builds > for windows/Mac will come later. > > If you want to download the wheels easily you can use a URL in the form of: > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/ > <YYYY-MM-DD>/dist/<mxnet_build>-1.6.0b<YYYYMMDD>-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > Heres a set of links for today’s builds > > (Plain mxnet, no mkl no cuda) > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > (mxnet-mkl > <https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-mkl> > ) > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > (mxnet-cuXXX > <https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-cuXXX> > ) > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu90-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu92-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > (mxnet-cuXXXmkl > <https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-cuXXXmkl> > ) > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu90mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu92mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu100mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > You can easily install these pip wheels in your system either by > downloading them to your machine first and then installing by doing: > > pip install /path/to/downloaded/wheel.whl > > Or you can install directly by just giving the link to pip like this: > > pip install > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > > Credit goes to everyone involved (in no particular order) > Rakesh Vasudevan > Zach Kimberg > Manu Seth > Sheng Zha > Jun Wu > Pedro Larroy > Chaitanya Bapat > > Thanks! > Sam > > > On Dec 5, 2019, at 1:16 AM, Lausen, Leonard <lau...@amazon.com.INVALID > <mailto:lau...@amazon.com.INVALID>> wrote: > > 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<mailto: > 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> > < > > 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 > >
