Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.14.0-incubating (RC4)
this regression is certainly something to look into but this release contains a large number of fixes including many that addressed severe OOM issues, so it might in fact be just an issue of more conservative but now correct execution plans given the current capabilities of our compiler. Regards, Matthias On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 5:39 PM, wrote: > +1 Grabbed the tar binary and the tar source and tested various local > scripts in Scala & Python 2 + 3, and those ran fine. However, I did run > the MNIST LeNet demo on both our 0.13 release and this 0.14 candidate, and > I noticed a regression in 0.14. For the same script run back to back, the > 0.14 candidate took longer, and looking into the stats, on 0.13 there were > 864 Spark instructions executed, while on this 0.14 there were 2513 Spark > instructions executed. This also brought the `sp_mapmm` and `sp_sel+` > instructions into the top 10 heavy hitters. This could be related to the > issue that I am seeing in SYSTEMML-1561. > > Regardless, I'm still fine with releasing this, since the deep learning > support is still experimental for 0.14. For our upcoming 1.0 release, all > engine bugs and issues related to deep learning need to be fixed. Most of > these bugs are generally applicable to all algorithms, so it is in the > benefit of the project to fix them. > > -- > > Mike Dusenberry > GitHub: github.com/dusenberrymw > LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/mikedusenberry > > Sent from my iPhone. > > > > On Apr 28, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Arvind Surve > wrote: > > > > +1 > > Completed following verifications - License and Notice validations - > Binary runtime validations- Source code compilation and runtime > validations - Python scripts validations using Python 2 Arvind Surve | > Spark Technology Center | http://www.spark.tc/ > > > > From: Glenn Weidner > > To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org > > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 9:30 PM > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.14.0-incubating (RC4) > > > > +1 > > > > Successfully ran Linear Regression, Logistic Regression, Naive Bayes, > SVM in > > Python notebooks with Spark 2.0.2 (in cloud environment) and Spark 2.1 > (on local test cluster) after pip install of RC4 python artifact > > systemml-0.14.0-incubating-python.tgz. Also ran Linear Regression > Conjugate Gradient in Scala notebooks. > > > > Regards, > > Glenn > > > > Matthias Boehm ---04/24/2017 02:02:12 AM---+1 I ran large-scale > experiments on Spark 2.1 for L2SVM, GLM, MLogreg, > > > > From: Matthias Boehm > > To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org > > Date: 04/24/2017 02:02 AM > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.14.0-incubating (RC4) > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > I ran large-scale experiments on Spark 2.1 for L2SVM, GLM, MLogreg, > > LinregCG, LinregDS, and PCA over scaled versions of MNIST and ImageNet > (up > > to 1TB, with uncompressed and compressed linear algebra) without any > > issues. > > > > Compared to previous experiments with SystemML 0.11 and Spark 1.6, I've > > seen substantial performance improvements of >2x for iterative algorithms > > with RDD operations in the inner loop over out-of-core datasets. > > > > Regards, > > Matthias > > > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Arvind Surve > > wrote: > > > >> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache SystemML > >> version 0.14.0-incubating ! > >> The vote is open for at least 72 hours and passes if a majority of at > >> least 3 +1 PMC votes are cast. > >> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache SystemML 0.14.0-incubating[ ] -1 > Do > >> not release this package because ... > >> To learn more about Apache SystemML, please see http://systemml.apache. > >> org/ > >> The tag to be voted on is v0.14.0-incubating-rc4 ( > >> 8bdcf106ca9bd04c0f68924ad5827eb7d7d54952) > >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-systemml/commit/ > >> 8bdcf106ca9bd04c0f68924ad5827eb7d7d54952 > >> > >> The release artifacts can be found at :https://dist.apache.org/ > >> repos/dist/dev/incubator/systemml/0.14.0-incubating-rc4/ > >> The maven release artifacts, including signatures, digests, etc. can > >> be found at:https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ > >> orgapachesystemml-1021/org/apache/systemml/systemml/0.14.0-incubating/ > >> === Apache Incubator release policy > >> ===Please find below the guide to > >> release management during incubation:http://incubator. > apache.org/guides/ > >> releasemanagement.html > >> = How can I help test this > >> release? =If you are a SystemML > >> user, you can help us test this release by taking an existing Algorithm > or > >> workload and running on this release candidate, thenreporting any > >> regressions. > >> == What justifies a -1 > >> vote for this release? == > -1 > >> votes should o
Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.14.0-incubating (RC4)
+1 Grabbed the tar binary and the tar source and tested various local scripts in Scala & Python 2 + 3, and those ran fine. However, I did run the MNIST LeNet demo on both our 0.13 release and this 0.14 candidate, and I noticed a regression in 0.14. For the same script run back to back, the 0.14 candidate took longer, and looking into the stats, on 0.13 there were 864 Spark instructions executed, while on this 0.14 there were 2513 Spark instructions executed. This also brought the `sp_mapmm` and `sp_sel+` instructions into the top 10 heavy hitters. This could be related to the issue that I am seeing in SYSTEMML-1561. Regardless, I'm still fine with releasing this, since the deep learning support is still experimental for 0.14. For our upcoming 1.0 release, all engine bugs and issues related to deep learning need to be fixed. Most of these bugs are generally applicable to all algorithms, so it is in the benefit of the project to fix them. -- Mike Dusenberry GitHub: github.com/dusenberrymw LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/mikedusenberry Sent from my iPhone. > On Apr 28, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Arvind Surve wrote: > > +1 > Completed following verifications - License and Notice validations - > Binary runtime validations- Source code compilation and runtime > validations - Python scripts validations using Python 2 Arvind Surve | > Spark Technology Center | http://www.spark.tc/ > > From: Glenn Weidner > To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 9:30 PM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.14.0-incubating (RC4) > > +1 > > Successfully ran Linear Regression, Logistic Regression, Naive Bayes, SVM in > Python notebooks with Spark 2.0.2 (in cloud environment) and Spark 2.1 (on > local test cluster) after pip install of RC4 python artifact > systemml-0.14.0-incubating-python.tgz. Also ran Linear Regression Conjugate > Gradient in Scala notebooks. > > Regards, > Glenn > > Matthias Boehm ---04/24/2017 02:02:12 AM---+1 I ran large-scale experiments > on Spark 2.1 for L2SVM, GLM, MLogreg, > > From: Matthias Boehm > To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org > Date: 04/24/2017 02:02 AM > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.14.0-incubating (RC4) > > > > +1 > > I ran large-scale experiments on Spark 2.1 for L2SVM, GLM, MLogreg, > LinregCG, LinregDS, and PCA over scaled versions of MNIST and ImageNet (up > to 1TB, with uncompressed and compressed linear algebra) without any > issues. > > Compared to previous experiments with SystemML 0.11 and Spark 1.6, I've > seen substantial performance improvements of >2x for iterative algorithms > with RDD operations in the inner loop over out-of-core datasets. > > Regards, > Matthias > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Arvind Surve > wrote: > >> Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache SystemML >> version 0.14.0-incubating ! >> The vote is open for at least 72 hours and passes if a majority of at >> least 3 +1 PMC votes are cast. >> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache SystemML 0.14.0-incubating[ ] -1 Do >> not release this package because ... >> To learn more about Apache SystemML, please see http://systemml.apache. >> org/ >> The tag to be voted on is v0.14.0-incubating-rc4 ( >> 8bdcf106ca9bd04c0f68924ad5827eb7d7d54952) >> https://github.com/apache/incubator-systemml/commit/ >> 8bdcf106ca9bd04c0f68924ad5827eb7d7d54952 >> >> The release artifacts can be found at :https://dist.apache.org/ >> repos/dist/dev/incubator/systemml/0.14.0-incubating-rc4/ >> The maven release artifacts, including signatures, digests, etc. can >> be found at:https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ >> orgapachesystemml-1021/org/apache/systemml/systemml/0.14.0-incubating/ >> === Apache Incubator release policy >> ===Please find below the guide to >> release management during incubation:http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ >> releasemanagement.html >> = How can I help test this >> release? =If you are a SystemML >> user, you can help us test this release by taking an existing Algorithm or >> workload and running on this release candidate, thenreporting any >> regressions. >> == What justifies a -1 >> vote for this release? ==-1 >> votes should only occur for significant stop-ship bugs or legal >> related issues (e.g. wrong license, missing header files, etc). Minor bugs >> or regressions should not block this release. >> -Arvind >> Arvind Surve | Spark Technology Center | http://www.spark.tc/ > > > > >
Re: Podling Report Reminder - May 2017
Hi, Would anyone else care to volunteer to create the SystemML podling report? If there are no volunteers, I will volunteer, but since SystemML is a community effort, it is good for others to be involved in the process. Note that podling reports are an important part of the incubation process, as can be seen from the thread on the general incubator list concerning Sirona (https://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg59362.html). Deron On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 5:41 PM, wrote: > Dear podling, > > This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache > Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to > prepare your quarterly board report. > > The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 17 May 2017, 10:30 am PDT. > The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC > report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks > before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and > submission (Wed, May 03). > > Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the Incubator > PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the > very latest you should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board > meeting. > > Thanks, > > The Apache Incubator PMC > > Submitting your Report > > -- > > Your report should contain the following: > > * Your project name > * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of > the project or necessarily of its field > * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move > towards graduation. > * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be > aware of > * How has the community developed since the last report > * How has the project developed since the last report. > * How does the podling rate their own maturity. > > This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at: > > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/May2017 > > Note: This is manually populated. You may need to wait a little before > this page is created from a template. > > Mentors > --- > > Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on > the Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are > following the project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms > for the Incubator PMC. > > Incubator PMC > -- Deron Eriksson Spark Technology Center http://www.spark.tc/
Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests
I would prefer option 2. -- Mike Dusenberry GitHub: github.com/dusenberrymw LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/mikedusenberry Sent from my iPhone. > On Apr 28, 2017, at 12:40 PM, Glenn Weidner wrote: > > My preference is option 3. > > Thanks, > Glenn > > > Arvind Surve ---04/28/2017 11:09:48 AM---Agree, these messages are > distractions. Arvind Surve | Spark Technology Center | http://www.spark. > > From: Arvind Surve > To: "dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org" > Date: 04/28/2017 11:09 AM > Subject: Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests > > > > > Agree, these messages are distractions. > Arvind Surve | Spark Technology Center | http://www.spark.tc/ > > From: Matthias Boehm > To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org > Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 11:05 AM > Subject: Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests > > as I commented on one of these github comments, I'm strongly against > these kind of unnecessary messages because they distract from the actual > discussions. I already had to change my notification settings > accordingly - essentially I'm not watching SystemML's PR activity any > more. > > Regards, > Matthias > > On 4/28/2017 10:42 AM, Deron Eriksson wrote: > > Hi, > > > > When a pull request is created or another commit is pushed to that pull > > request, a build including running our test suite is performed (Jenkins at > > https://sparktc.ibmcloud.com/jenkins/job/SystemML-PullRequestBuilder/). > > This is the same model that other projects such as Apache Spark use > > (Jenkins at > > https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/). > > > > A few days ago, automated build passed/failed pull request messages were > > introduced to our pull requests, following the same type of Spark model. > > A) SystemML example: https://github.com/apache/incubator-systemml/pull/442 > > B) Spark example: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/17765 > > > > Personally I like these messages because for contributors that do pull > > requests, it automatically tells them the status of the build for their > > pull requests and gives them a direct link to the build/test results. An > > opposing viewpoint would be that these messages are somewhat like spam. > > > > So we should make a public decision on the mailing list what to do about > > these automated build status messages. > > > > Some options: > > (1) keep the automated messages exactly as they are > > (2) keep the automated messages, but consolidate the two messages into one > > (such as "Build successful" and "Refer to this link..."). > > (3) get rid of the automated messages > > > > I like (2). Any other opinions or options? > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Deron > > > > > > > > >
Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests
My preference is option 3. Thanks, Glenn From: Arvind Surve To: "dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org" Date: 04/28/2017 11:09 AM Subject:Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests Agree, these messages are distractions. Arvind Surve | Spark Technology Center | http://www.spark.tc/ From: Matthias Boehm To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 11:05 AM Subject: Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests as I commented on one of these github comments, I'm strongly against these kind of unnecessary messages because they distract from the actual discussions. I already had to change my notification settings accordingly - essentially I'm not watching SystemML's PR activity any more. Regards, Matthias On 4/28/2017 10:42 AM, Deron Eriksson wrote: > Hi, > > When a pull request is created or another commit is pushed to that pull > request, a build including running our test suite is performed (Jenkins at > https://sparktc.ibmcloud.com/jenkins/job/SystemML-PullRequestBuilder/). > This is the same model that other projects such as Apache Spark use > (Jenkins at > https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/). > > A few days ago, automated build passed/failed pull request messages were > introduced to our pull requests, following the same type of Spark model. > A) SystemML example: https://github.com/apache/incubator-systemml/pull/442 > B) Spark example: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/17765 > > Personally I like these messages because for contributors that do pull > requests, it automatically tells them the status of the build for their > pull requests and gives them a direct link to the build/test results. An > opposing viewpoint would be that these messages are somewhat like spam. > > So we should make a public decision on the mailing list what to do about > these automated build status messages. > > Some options: > (1) keep the automated messages exactly as they are > (2) keep the automated messages, but consolidate the two messages into one > (such as "Build successful" and "Refer to this link..."). > (3) get rid of the automated messages > > I like (2). Any other opinions or options? > > Thoughts? > > Deron > >
Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests
Agree, these messages are distractions. Arvind Surve | Spark Technology Center | http://www.spark.tc/ From: Matthias Boehm To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 11:05 AM Subject: Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests as I commented on one of these github comments, I'm strongly against these kind of unnecessary messages because they distract from the actual discussions. I already had to change my notification settings accordingly - essentially I'm not watching SystemML's PR activity any more. Regards, Matthias On 4/28/2017 10:42 AM, Deron Eriksson wrote: > Hi, > > When a pull request is created or another commit is pushed to that pull > request, a build including running our test suite is performed (Jenkins at > https://sparktc.ibmcloud.com/jenkins/job/SystemML-PullRequestBuilder/). > This is the same model that other projects such as Apache Spark use > (Jenkins at > https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/). > > A few days ago, automated build passed/failed pull request messages were > introduced to our pull requests, following the same type of Spark model. > A) SystemML example: https://github.com/apache/incubator-systemml/pull/442 > B) Spark example: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/17765 > > Personally I like these messages because for contributors that do pull > requests, it automatically tells them the status of the build for their > pull requests and gives them a direct link to the build/test results. An > opposing viewpoint would be that these messages are somewhat like spam. > > So we should make a public decision on the mailing list what to do about > these automated build status messages. > > Some options: > (1) keep the automated messages exactly as they are > (2) keep the automated messages, but consolidate the two messages into one > (such as "Build successful" and "Refer to this link..."). > (3) get rid of the automated messages > > I like (2). Any other opinions or options? > > Thoughts? > > Deron > >
Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests
as I commented on one of these github comments, I'm strongly against these kind of unnecessary messages because they distract from the actual discussions. I already had to change my notification settings accordingly - essentially I'm not watching SystemML's PR activity any more. Regards, Matthias On 4/28/2017 10:42 AM, Deron Eriksson wrote: Hi, When a pull request is created or another commit is pushed to that pull request, a build including running our test suite is performed (Jenkins at https://sparktc.ibmcloud.com/jenkins/job/SystemML-PullRequestBuilder/). This is the same model that other projects such as Apache Spark use (Jenkins at https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/). A few days ago, automated build passed/failed pull request messages were introduced to our pull requests, following the same type of Spark model. A) SystemML example: https://github.com/apache/incubator-systemml/pull/442 B) Spark example: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/17765 Personally I like these messages because for contributors that do pull requests, it automatically tells them the status of the build for their pull requests and gives them a direct link to the build/test results. An opposing viewpoint would be that these messages are somewhat like spam. So we should make a public decision on the mailing list what to do about these automated build status messages. Some options: (1) keep the automated messages exactly as they are (2) keep the automated messages, but consolidate the two messages into one (such as "Build successful" and "Refer to this link..."). (3) get rid of the automated messages I like (2). Any other opinions or options? Thoughts? Deron
Re: Build passed/failed messages for pull requests
I like option (2) as well. It is difficult for a new contributor to know the URL for the Jenkins server. In so far as this may be considered spam, I would suggest that this can be controlled using the notification settings on github and filters on your email server/client. On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Deron Eriksson wrote: > Hi, > > When a pull request is created or another commit is pushed to that pull > request, a build including running our test suite is performed (Jenkins at > https://sparktc.ibmcloud.com/jenkins/job/SystemML-PullRequestBuilder/). > This is the same model that other projects such as Apache Spark use > (Jenkins at > https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/). > > A few days ago, automated build passed/failed pull request messages were > introduced to our pull requests, following the same type of Spark model. > A) SystemML example: https://github.com/apache/incubator-systemml/pull/442 > B) Spark example: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/17765 > > Personally I like these messages because for contributors that do pull > requests, it automatically tells them the status of the build for their > pull requests and gives them a direct link to the build/test results. An > opposing viewpoint would be that these messages are somewhat like spam. > > So we should make a public decision on the mailing list what to do about > these automated build status messages. > > Some options: > (1) keep the automated messages exactly as they are > (2) keep the automated messages, but consolidate the two messages into one > (such as "Build successful" and "Refer to this link..."). > (3) get rid of the automated messages > > I like (2). Any other opinions or options? > > Thoughts? > > Deron > > > -- > Deron Eriksson > Spark Technology Center > http://www.spark.tc/ >
Build passed/failed messages for pull requests
Hi, When a pull request is created or another commit is pushed to that pull request, a build including running our test suite is performed (Jenkins at https://sparktc.ibmcloud.com/jenkins/job/SystemML-PullRequestBuilder/). This is the same model that other projects such as Apache Spark use (Jenkins at https://amplab.cs.berkeley.edu/jenkins/job/SparkPullRequestBuilder/). A few days ago, automated build passed/failed pull request messages were introduced to our pull requests, following the same type of Spark model. A) SystemML example: https://github.com/apache/incubator-systemml/pull/442 B) Spark example: https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/17765 Personally I like these messages because for contributors that do pull requests, it automatically tells them the status of the build for their pull requests and gives them a direct link to the build/test results. An opposing viewpoint would be that these messages are somewhat like spam. So we should make a public decision on the mailing list what to do about these automated build status messages. Some options: (1) keep the automated messages exactly as they are (2) keep the automated messages, but consolidate the two messages into one (such as "Build successful" and "Refer to this link..."). (3) get rid of the automated messages I like (2). Any other opinions or options? Thoughts? Deron -- Deron Eriksson Spark Technology Center http://www.spark.tc/
Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.14.0-incubating (RC4)
+1 Completed following verifications - License and Notice validations - Binary runtime validations - Source code compilation and runtime validations - Python scripts validations using Python 2 Arvind Surve | Spark Technology Center | http://www.spark.tc/ From: Glenn Weidner To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org Sent: Monday, April 24, 2017 9:30 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.14.0-incubating (RC4) +1 Successfully ran Linear Regression, Logistic Regression, Naive Bayes, SVM in Python notebooks with Spark 2.0.2 (in cloud environment) and Spark 2.1 (on local test cluster) after pip install of RC4 python artifact systemml-0.14.0-incubating-python.tgz. Also ran Linear Regression Conjugate Gradient in Scala notebooks. Regards, Glenn Matthias Boehm ---04/24/2017 02:02:12 AM---+1 I ran large-scale experiments on Spark 2.1 for L2SVM, GLM, MLogreg, From: Matthias Boehm To: dev@systemml.incubator.apache.org Date: 04/24/2017 02:02 AM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache SystemML 0.14.0-incubating (RC4) +1 I ran large-scale experiments on Spark 2.1 for L2SVM, GLM, MLogreg, LinregCG, LinregDS, and PCA over scaled versions of MNIST and ImageNet (up to 1TB, with uncompressed and compressed linear algebra) without any issues. Compared to previous experiments with SystemML 0.11 and Spark 1.6, I've seen substantial performance improvements of >2x for iterative algorithms with RDD operations in the inner loop over out-of-core datasets. Regards, Matthias On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Arvind Surve wrote: > Please vote on releasing the following candidate as Apache SystemML > version 0.14.0-incubating ! > The vote is open for at least 72 hours and passes if a majority of at > least 3 +1 PMC votes are cast. > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache SystemML 0.14.0-incubating[ ] -1 Do > not release this package because ... > To learn more about Apache SystemML, please see http://systemml.apache. > org/ > The tag to be voted on is v0.14.0-incubating-rc4 ( > 8bdcf106ca9bd04c0f68924ad5827eb7d7d54952) > https://github.com/apache/incubator-systemml/commit/ > 8bdcf106ca9bd04c0f68924ad5827eb7d7d54952 > > The release artifacts can be found at :https://dist.apache.org/ > repos/dist/dev/incubator/systemml/0.14.0-incubating-rc4/ > The maven release artifacts, including signatures, digests, etc. can > be found at:https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/ > orgapachesystemml-1021/org/apache/systemml/systemml/0.14.0-incubating/ > === Apache Incubator release policy > ===Please find below the guide to > release management during incubation:http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ > releasemanagement.html > = How can I help test this > release? =If you are a SystemML > user, you can help us test this release by taking an existing Algorithm or > workload and running on this release candidate, thenreporting any > regressions. > == What justifies a -1 > vote for this release? ==-1 > votes should only occur for significant stop-ship bugs or legal > related issues (e.g. wrong license, missing header files, etc). Minor bugs > or regressions should not block this release. > -Arvind > Arvind Surve | Spark Technology Center | http://www.spark.tc/
