On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:23 AM Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your proposal Henning. +1 for explicit environment messages.
> I'm not sure how important it is to support cross-platform pipelines. I
> can foresee future use but I wouldn't consider it essential.
One may want to execute Tensforflow pipeline segments from the middle
of a Java pipeline, or leverage the SQL code (currently implemented in
Java) from Python or Go. In my experience, a common pipeline shape is
to do a significant amount of (often fairly trivial) filtering at the
front of a pipeline, and sophisticated analysis at the end, and the
tradeoffs of execution efficiency vs. expressiveness and prototype
friendliness are different in these two halves of the same pipeline.
> However, it
> basically comes for free if we extend the existing environment
> information for ExecutableStage. The overhead, as you said, is negligible.
+1. Also it should be noted that the runner is ideally not restricted
to this set of environments; if it understands the URN it can use
whatever environment it finds appropriate. This could be especially
useful for optimal choice of environment to avoid unneeded fusion
barriers (e.g. the trivial Count transform will has a pair-with-one
before the GBK, and a sum-values after the GBK, and assuming those
operations are available in nearly every environment it would be
preferable to choose the variant according to what precedes/follows it
to allow fusion (or, possibly, even embed the operation).
> Also agree that artifact staging is important even with process-based
> execution. The execution environment might be managed externally but we
> still want to be able to execute new pipelines without copying over
> required artifact. That said, a first version could come without
> artifact staging.
One of the parameters passed to the script is the staging endpoint,
which it can use to do all the staging itself, so this could also be
internal to the script. I can however see wanting the ability to stage
artifacts more cheaply (e.g. symlinks), and this is actually also the
case with the docker environment (e.g. mount points).
> On 23.08.18 18:14, Henning Rohde wrote:
> > A process-based SDK harness does not IMO imply that the host is fully
> > provisioned by the SDK/user and invoking the user command line in the
> > context of the staged files is a critical aspect for it to work. So I
> > consider staged artifact support needed. Also, I would like to suggest
> > that we move to a concrete environment proto to crystalize what is
> > actually being proposed. I'm not sure what activating a virtualenv would
> > look like, for example. To start things off:
> >
> > message Environment {
> > string urn = 1;
> > bytes payload = 2;
> > }
> >
> > // urn == "beam:env:docker:v1"
> > message DockerPayload {
> > string container_image = 1; // implicitly linux_amd64.
> > }
> >
> > // urn == "beam:env:process:v1"
> > message ProcessPayload {
> > string os = 1; // "linux", "darwin", ..
> > string arch = 2; // "amd64", ..
> > string command_line = 3;
> > }
> >
> > // urn == "beam:env:external:v1"
> > // (no payload)
> >
> > A runner may support any subset and reject any unsupported
> > configuration. There are 3 kinds of environments that I think are useful:
> > (1) docker: works as currently. Offers the most flexibility for SDKs
> > and users, especially when the runner is outside the control (such
> > as hosted runners). The runner starts the SDK harnesses.
> > (2) process: as discussed here. The runner starts the SDK harnesses.
> > The semantics is that the shell commandline is invoked in a directory
> > rooted in the staged artifacts with the container contract arguments. It
> > is up to the user and runner deployment to ensure that it makes sense,
> > i.e., on windows a linux binary or bash script is not specified.
> > Executing the user command in a shell env (bash, zsh, cmd, ..) ensures
> > that paths and so on are set up:, i.e., specifying "java -jar foo" would
> > actually work. Useful for cases where the user controls both the SDK and
> > runner (such as locally) or when docker is not an option. Intended to be
> > minimal and SDK/language agnostic.
> > (3) external: this is what I think Robert was alluding to. The runner
> > does not start any SDK harnesses. Instead it waits for user-controlled
> > SDK harnesses to connect. Useful for manually debugging SDK code
> > (connect from code running in a debugger) or when the user code must run
> > in a special or privileged environment. It's runner-specific how the SDK
> > will need to connect.
> >
> > Part of the idea of placing this information in the environment is that
> > pipelines can potentially use multiple, such as cross-windows/linux.
> >
> > Henning
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 6:44 AM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org
> > <mailto:t...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >
> > I would see support for staging libraries as optional / nice to have
> > since that can also be done as part of host provisioning (i.e. in
> > the Python case a virtual environment was already setup and just
> > needs to be activated).
> >
> > Depending on how the command that launches the harness is
> > configured, additional steps such as virtualenv activate or setting
> > of other environment variables can be included as well.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 5:15 AM Maximilian Michels <m...@apache.org
> > <mailto:m...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Just to recap:
> >
> > From this and the other thread ("Bootstraping Beam's Job
> > Server") we
> > got sufficient evidence that process-based execution is a
> > desired feature.
> >
> > Process-based execution as an alternative to dockerized execution
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-5187
> >
> > Which parts are executed as a process?
> > => The SDK harness for user code
> >
> > What configuration options are supported?
> > => Provide information about the target architecture (OS/CPU)
> > => Staging libraries, as also supported by Docker
> > => Activating a pre-existing environment (e.g. virutalenv)
> >
> >
> > On 23.08.18 14:13, Maximilian Michels wrote:
> > >> One thing to consider that we've talked about in the past.
> > It might
> > >> make sense to extend the environment proto and have the SDK be
> > >> explicit about which kinds of environment it support
> > >
> > > +1 Encoding environment information there is a good idea.
> > >
> > >> Seems it will create a default docker url even if the
> > >> hardness_docker_image is set to None in pipeline options.
> > Shall we add
> > >> another option or honor the None in this option to support
> > the process
> > >> job?
> > >
> > > Yes, if no Docker image is set the default one will be used.
> > Currently
> > > Docker is the only way to execute pipelines with the
> > PortableRunner. If
> > > the docker_image is not set, execution won't succeed.
> > >
> > > On 22.08.18 22:59, Xinyu Liu wrote:
> > >> We are also interested in this Process JobBundleFactory as
> > we are
> > >> planning to fork a process to run python sdk in Samza
> > runner, instead
> > >> of using docker container. So this change will be helpful to
> > us too.
> > >> On the same note, we are trying out portable_runner.py to
> > submit a
> > >> python job. Seems it will create a default docker url even
> > if the
> > >> hardness_docker_image is set to None in pipeline options.
> > Shall we add
> > >> another option or honor the None in this option to support
> > the process
> > >> job? I made some local changes right now to walk around this.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Xinyu
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Henning Rohde
> > <hero...@google.com <mailto:hero...@google.com>
> > >> <mailto:hero...@google.com <mailto:hero...@google.com>>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> By "enum" in quotes, I meant the usual open URN style
> > pattern not an
> > >> actual enum. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 11:51 AM Lukasz Cwik
> > <lc...@google.com <mailto:lc...@google.com>
> > >> <mailto:lc...@google.com <mailto:lc...@google.com>>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I would model the environment to be more free form
> > then enums
> > >> such that we have forward looking extensibility and
> > would
> > >> suggest to follow the same pattern we use on
> > PTransforms (using
> > >> an URN and a URN specific payload). Note that in
> > this case we
> > >> may want to support a list of supported environments
> > (e.g. java,
> > >> docker, python, ...).
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:37 AM Henning Rohde
> > >> <hero...@google.com <mailto:hero...@google.com>
> > <mailto:hero...@google.com <mailto:hero...@google.com>>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> One thing to consider that we've talked about in
> > the past.
> > >> It might make sense to extend the environment
> > proto and have
> > >> the SDK be explicit about which kinds of
> > environment it
> > >> supports:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/8c4f4babc0b0d55e7bddefa3f9f9ba65d21ef139/model/pipeline/src/main/proto/beam_runner_api.proto#L969
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > <https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/8c4f4babc0b0d55e7bddefa3f9f9ba65d21ef139/model/pipeline/src/main/proto/beam_runner_api.proto#L969>
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> This choice might impact what files are staged
> > or what not.
> > >> Some SDKs, such as Go, provide a compiled binary
> > and _need_
> > >> to know what the target architecture is. Running
> > on a mac
> > >> with and without docker, say, requires a
> > different worker in
> > >> each case. If we add an "enum", we can also
> > easily add the
> > >> external idea where the SDK/user starts the SDK
> > harnesses
> > >> instead of the runner. Each runner may not
> > support all types
> > >> of environments.
> > >>
> > >> Henning
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:52 AM Maximilian Michels
> > >> <m...@apache.org <mailto:m...@apache.org>
> > <mailto:m...@apache.org <mailto:m...@apache.org>>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> For reference, here is corresponding JIRA
> > issue for this
> > >> thread:
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-5187
> > >>
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-5187>
> > >>
> > >> On 16.08.18 11:15, Maximilian Michels wrote:
> > >> > Makes sense to have an option to run the
> > SDK harness
> > >> in a non-dockerized
> > >> > environment.
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm in the process of creating a Docker
> > entry point
> > >> for Flink's
> > >> > JobServer[1]. I suppose you would also
> > prefer to
> > >> execute that one
> > >> > standalone. We should make sure this is
> > also an
> > >> option.
> > >> >
> > >> > [1]
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4130
> > >>
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4130>
> > >> >
> > >> > On 16.08.18 07:42, Thomas Weise wrote:
> > >> >> Yes, that's the proposal. Everything
> > that would
> > >> otherwise be packaged
> > >> >> into the Docker container would need to be
> > >> pre-installed in the host
> > >> >> environment. In the case of Python SDK,
> > that could
> > >> simply mean a
> > >> >> (frozen) virtual environment that was
> > setup when the
> > >> host was
> > >> >> provisioned - the SDK harness
> > process(es) will then
> > >> just utilize that.
> > >> >> Of course this flavor of SDK harness
> > execution could
> > >> also be useful in
> > >> >> the local development environment, where
> > right now
> > >> someone who already
> > >> >> has the Python environment needs to also
> > install
> > >> Docker and update a
> > >> >> container to launch a Python SDK
> > pipeline on the
> > >> Flink runner.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 12:40 PM Daniel
> > Oliveira
> > >> <danolive...@google.com
> > <mailto:danolive...@google.com> <mailto:danolive...@google.com
> > <mailto:danolive...@google.com>>
> > >> >> <mailto:danolive...@google.com
> > <mailto:danolive...@google.com>
> > >> <mailto:danolive...@google.com
> > <mailto:danolive...@google.com>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I just want to clarify that I
> > understand this
> > >> correctly since I'm
> > >> >> not that familiar with the details
> > behind all
> > >> these execution
> > >> >> environments yet. Is the proposal
> > to create a
> > >> new JobBundleFactory
> > >> >> that instead of using Docker to
> > create the
> > >> environment that the new
> > >> >> processes will execute in, this
> > >> JobBundleFactory would execute the
> > >> >> new processes directly in the host
> > environment?
> > >> So in practice if I
> > >> >> ran a pipeline with this
> > JobBundleFactory the
> > >> SDK Harness and Runner
> > >> >> Harness would both be executing
> > directly on my
> > >> machine and would
> > >> >> depend on me having the
> > dependencies already
> > >> present on my machine?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 5:50 PM
> > Ankur Goenka
> > >> <goe...@google.com
> > <mailto:goe...@google.com> <mailto:goe...@google.com
> > <mailto:goe...@google.com>>
> > >> >> <mailto:goe...@google.com
> > <mailto:goe...@google.com>
> > >> <mailto:goe...@google.com
> > <mailto:goe...@google.com>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks for starting the
> > discussion. I will
> > >> be happy to help.
> > >> >> I agree, we should have pluggable
> > >> SDKHarness environment Factory.
> > >> >> We can register multiple
> > Environment
> > >> factory using service
> > >> >> registry and use the
> > PipelineOption to pick
> > >> the right one on per
> > >> >> job basis.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> There are a couple of things
> > which are
> > >> require to setup before
> > >> >> launching the process.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> * Setting up the environment
> > as done in
> > >> boot.go [4]
> > >> >> * Retrieving and putting the
> > artifacts in
> > >> the right location.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> You can probably leverage
> > boot.go code to
> > >> setup the environment.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Also, it will be useful to
> > enumerate pros
> > >> and cons of different
> > >> >> Environments to help users
> > choose the right
> > >> one.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 4:50 PM
> > Thomas Weise
> > >> <t...@apache.org <mailto:t...@apache.org>
> > <mailto:t...@apache.org <mailto:t...@apache.org>>
> > >> >> <mailto:t...@apache.org
> > <mailto:t...@apache.org>
> > >> <mailto:t...@apache.org
> > <mailto:t...@apache.org>>>> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Hi,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Currently the portable
> > Flink runner
> > >> only works with SDK
> > >> >> Docker containers for execution
> > >> (DockerJobBundleFactory,
> > >> >> besides an in-process
> > (embedded)
> > >> factory option for testing
> > >> >> [1]). I'm considering
> > adding another
> > >> out of process
> > >> >> JobBundleFactory
> > implementation that
> > >> directly forks the
> > >> >> processes on the task
> > manager host,
> > >> eliminating the need for
> > >> >> Docker. This would work
> > reasonably well
> > >> in environments
> > >> >> where the dependencies (in
> > this case
> > >> Python) can easily be
> > >> >> tied into the host
> > deployment (also
> > >> within an application
> > >> >> specific Kubernetes pod).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> There was already some
> > discussion about
> > >> alternative
> > >> >> JobBundleFactory
> > implementation in [2].
> > >> There is also a JIRA
> > >> >> to make the bundle factory
> > pluggable
> > >> [3], pending
> > >> >> availability of runner
> > level options.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> For a
> > "ProcessBundleFactory", in
> > >> addition to the Python
> > >> >> dependencies the
> > environment would also
> > >> need to have the Go
> > >> >> boot executable [4] (or a
> > substitute
> > >> thereof) to perform the
> > >> >> harness initialization.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Is anyone else interested
> > in this SDK
> > >> execution option or
> > >> >> has already investigated an
> > alternative
> > >> implementation?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks,
> > >> >> Thomas
> > >> >>
> > >> >> [1]
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/7958a379b0a37a89edc3a6ae4b5bc82fda41fcd6/runners/flink/src/test/java/org/apache/beam/runners/flink/PortableExecutionTest.java#L83
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > <https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/7958a379b0a37a89edc3a6ae4b5bc82fda41fcd6/runners/flink/src/test/java/org/apache/beam/runners/flink/PortableExecutionTest.java#L83>
> >
> > >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> [2]
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d6b6fde764796de31996db9bb5f9de3e7aaf0ab29b99d0adb52ac508@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d6b6fde764796de31996db9bb5f9de3e7aaf0ab29b99d0adb52ac508@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E>
> >
> > >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> [3]
> > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4819
> > >>
> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-4819>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> [4]
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/sdks/python/container/boot.go
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > <https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/sdks/python/container/boot.go>
> >
> > >>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >> -- Max
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Max
> >
>
> --
> Max
