Yep, the driver and executors need to have compatible Python versions. I think that there are some bytecode-level incompatibilities between 2.6 and 2.7 which would impact the deserialization of Python closures, so I think you need to be running the same 2.x version for all communicating Spark processes. Note that you _can_ use a Python 2.7 `ipython` executable on the driver while continuing to use a vanilla `python` executable on the executors (we have environment variables which allow you to control these separately).
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Nicholas Chammas <nicholas.cham...@gmail.com > wrote: > I think all the slaves need the same (or a compatible) version of Python > installed since they run Python code in PySpark jobs natively. > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 6:02 PM Koert Kuipers <ko...@tresata.com> wrote: > >> interesting i didnt know that! >> >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Nicholas Chammas < >> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> even if python 2.7 was needed only on this one machine that launches the >>> app we can not ship it with our software because its gpl licensed >>> >>> Not to nitpick, but maybe this is important. The Python license is >>> GPL-compatible >>> but not GPL <https://docs.python.org/3/license.html>: >>> >>> Note GPL-compatible doesn’t mean that we’re distributing Python under >>> the GPL. All Python licenses, unlike the GPL, let you distribute a modified >>> version without making your changes open source. The GPL-compatible >>> licenses make it possible to combine Python with other software that is >>> released under the GPL; the others don’t. >>> >>> Nick >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:49 PM Koert Kuipers <ko...@tresata.com> wrote: >>> >>>> i do not think so. >>>> >>>> does the python 2.7 need to be installed on all slaves? if so, we do >>>> not have direct access to those. >>>> >>>> also, spark is easy for us to ship with our software since its apache 2 >>>> licensed, and it only needs to be present on the machine that launches the >>>> app (thanks to yarn). >>>> even if python 2.7 was needed only on this one machine that launches >>>> the app we can not ship it with our software because its gpl licensed, so >>>> the client would have to download it and install it themselves, and this >>>> would mean its an independent install which has to be audited and approved >>>> and now you are in for a lot of fun. basically it will never happen. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Josh Rosen <joshro...@databricks.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> If users are able to install Spark 2.0 on their RHEL clusters, then I >>>>> imagine that they're also capable of installing a standalone Python >>>>> alongside that Spark version (without changing Python systemwide). For >>>>> instance, Anaconda/Miniconda make it really easy to install Python >>>>> 2.7.x/3.x without impacting / changing the system Python and doesn't >>>>> require any special permissions to install (you don't need root / sudo >>>>> access). Does this address the Python versioning concerns for RHEL users? >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Koert Kuipers <ko...@tresata.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> yeah, the practical concern is that we have no control over java or >>>>>> python version on large company clusters. our current reality for the >>>>>> vast >>>>>> majority of them is java 7 and python 2.6, no matter how outdated that >>>>>> is. >>>>>> >>>>>> i dont like it either, but i cannot change it. >>>>>> >>>>>> we currently don't use pyspark so i have no stake in this, but if we >>>>>> did i can assure you we would not upgrade to spark 2.x if python 2.6 was >>>>>> dropped. no point in developing something that doesnt run for majority of >>>>>> customers. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Nicholas Chammas < >>>>>> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> As I pointed out in my earlier email, RHEL will support Python 2.6 >>>>>>> until 2020. So I'm assuming these large companies will have the option >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> riding out Python 2.6 until then. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are we seriously saying that Spark should likewise support Python >>>>>>> 2.6 for the next several years? Even though the core Python devs stopped >>>>>>> supporting it in 2013? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If that's not what we're suggesting, then when, roughly, can we drop >>>>>>> support? What are the criteria? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand the practical concern here. If companies are stuck >>>>>>> using 2.6, it doesn't matter to them that it is deprecated. But >>>>>>> balancing >>>>>>> that concern against the maintenance burden on this project, I would say >>>>>>> that "upgrade to Python 2.7 or stay on Spark 1.6.x" is a reasonable >>>>>>> position to take. There are many tiny annoyances one has to put up with >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> support 2.6. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suppose if our main PySpark contributors are fine putting up with >>>>>>> those annoyances, then maybe we don't need to drop support just yet... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nick >>>>>>> 2016년 1월 5일 (화) 오후 2:27, Julio Antonio Soto de Vicente < >>>>>>> ju...@esbet.es>님이 작성: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Unfortunately, Koert is right. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've been in a couple of projects using Spark (banking industry) >>>>>>>> where CentOS + Python 2.6 is the toolbox available. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That said, I believe it should not be a concern for Spark. Python >>>>>>>> 2.6 is old and busted, which is totally opposite to the Spark >>>>>>>> philosophy >>>>>>>> IMO. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> El 5 ene 2016, a las 20:07, Koert Kuipers <ko...@tresata.com> >>>>>>>> escribió: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> rhel/centos 6 ships with python 2.6, doesnt it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if so, i still know plenty of large companies where python 2.6 is >>>>>>>> the only option. asking them for python 2.7 is not going to work >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> so i think its a bad idea >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Juliet Hougland < >>>>>>>> juliet.hougl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't see a reason Spark 2.0 would need to support Python 2.6. >>>>>>>>> At this point, Python 3 should be the default that is encouraged. >>>>>>>>> Most organizations acknowledge the 2.7 is common, but lagging >>>>>>>>> behind the version they should theoretically use. Dropping python 2.6 >>>>>>>>> support sounds very reasonable to me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Nicholas Chammas < >>>>>>>>> nicholas.cham...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Red Hat supports Python 2.6 on REHL 5 until 2020 >>>>>>>>>> <https://alexgaynor.net/2015/mar/30/red-hat-open-source-community/>, >>>>>>>>>> but otherwise yes, Python 2.6 is ancient history and the core Python >>>>>>>>>> developers stopped supporting it in 2013. REHL 5 is not a good enough >>>>>>>>>> reason to continue support for Python 2.6 IMO. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We should aim to support Python 2.7 and Python 3.3+ (which I >>>>>>>>>> believe we currently do). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nick >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 8:01 AM Allen Zhang <allenzhang...@126.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> plus 1, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> we are currently using python 2.7.2 in production environment. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 在 2016-01-05 18:11:45，"Meethu Mathew" <meethu.mat...@flytxt.com> >>>>>>>>>>> 写道： >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> +1 >>>>>>>>>>> We use Python 2.7 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Meethu Mathew >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Reynold Xin < >>>>>>>>>>> r...@databricks.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Does anybody here care about us dropping support for Python 2.6 >>>>>>>>>>>> in Spark 2.0? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Python 2.6 is ancient, and is pretty slow in many aspects (e.g. >>>>>>>>>>>> json parsing) when compared with Python 2.7. Some libraries that >>>>>>>>>>>> Spark >>>>>>>>>>>> depend on stopped supporting 2.6. We can still convince the library >>>>>>>>>>>> maintainers to support 2.6, but it will be extra work. I'm curious >>>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>> anybody still uses Python 2.6 to run Spark. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>
