I think it is a good idea to do the sanity check first. Even at 10 minutes. And also try to fix the docker cache situation, but those can be separate tasks.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020, 12:52 Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jenkins doesn't load for me, so let me ask this way: are we actually > rebuilding every single time or do you mean the docker cache? Pulling the > cache should only take a few seconds from my experience - docker build > should be a no-op in most cases. > > -Marco > > > Joe Evans <joseph.ev...@gmail.com> schrieb am Do., 26. März 2020, 20:46: > > > 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.ab...@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.ev...@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.ab...@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.mark...@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.ab...@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.ev...@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.ev...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >