Thanks Sheng, Looks like 12/8 builds are working as expected too:
(Plain mxnet, no mkl no cuda) https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-08/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191208-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl (mxnet-mkl) https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-08/dist/mxnet_mkl-1.6.0b20191208-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl (mxnet-cuXXX) https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-08/dist/mxnet_cu90-1.6.0b20191208-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-08/dist/mxnet_cu92-1.6.0b20191208-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-08/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20191208-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-08/dist/mxnet_cu101-1.6.0b20191208-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl (mxnet-cuXXXmkl) https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-08/dist/mxnet_cu90mkl-1.6.0b20191208-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-08/dist/mxnet_cu92mkl-1.6.0b20191208-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-08/dist/mxnet_cu100mkl-1.6.0b20191208-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-08/dist/mxnet_cu101mkl-1.6.0b20191208-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl I’ll try and get this updated on the installation docs page tomorrow. Sam On Dec 7, 2019, at 5:30 PM, Sheng Zha <zhash...@apache.org<mailto:zhash...@apache.org>> wrote: 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_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_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 These links are not utilizing the s3 accelerate feature (i.e. not backed by cloudfront edges). Please use repo.mxnet.io<http://repo.mxnet.io/> instead. The updated links are: (Plain mxnet, no mkl no cuda) https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl (mxnet-mkl) https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl (mxnet-cuXXX) https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu90-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu92-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl (mxnet-cuXXXmkl) https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu90mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu92mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu100mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl https://repo.mxnet.io/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl When updating the installation doc we should use repo.mxnet.io<http://repo.mxnet.io/> domain name too. Best, -sz On 2019/12/07 17:39:40, "Skalicky, Sam" <sska...@amazon.com.INVALID<mailto:sska...@amazon.com.INVALID>> wrote: 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_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_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><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><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 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
