Thanks Tim!

This was my only hesitation, and sounds like we're in the clear here.

+1 (binding)
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:05 PM Tim Robertson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> A colleague and I tested on 2.7.0 and 2.8.0RC1:
>
> 1. Quickstart on Spark/YARN/HDFS (CDH 5.12.0) (commented in spreadsheet)
> 2. Our Avro to Avro pipelines on Spark/YARN/HDFS (note we backport the 
> un-merged BEAM-5036 fix in our code)
> 3. Our Avro to Elasticsearch pipelines on Spark/YARN/HDFS
>
> Everything worked, and performance was similar on both.
> We built using maven pointing at 
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1049/
>
> Based on this limited testing: +1
>
> Thank you to the release managers,
> Tim
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 7:21 PM Tim <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I can do some tests on Spark / YARN tomorrow (CEST timezone). Sorry I’ve 
>> just been too busy to assist.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> On 25 Oct 2018, at 18:59, Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I tried to do a more thorough job on this.
>>
>>  - I could not reproduce the slowdown in Query 9. I believe the variance was 
>> simply high given the parameters and environment
>>  - I saw the same slowdown in Query 8 when running as part of the suite, but 
>> it vanished when I ran repeatedly on its own, so again it is not good 
>> methodology probably
>>
>> We do have the dashboard at 
>> https://apache-beam-testing.appspot.com/dashboard-admin though no anomaly 
>> detection set up AFAIK.
>>
>>  - There is no issue easily visible in DirectRunner: 
>> https://apache-beam-testing.appspot.com/explore?dashboard=5084698770407424
>>  - There is a notable degradation in Spark runner on 10/5 for many queries. 
>> https://apache-beam-testing.appspot.com/explore?dashboard=5138380291571712
>>  - Something minor happened for Dataflow around 10/1: 
>> https://apache-beam-testing.appspot.com/explore?dashboard=5670405876482048
>>  - Flink runner seems to have had some fantastic improvements :-) 
>> https://apache-beam-testing.appspot.com/explore?dashboard=5699257587728384
>>
>> So if there is a blocker it would really be the Spark runner perf changes. 
>> Of course, all these except Dataflow are using local instances so may not be 
>> representative of larger scale AFAIK.
>>
>> Kenn
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 9:48 AM Maximilian Michels <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I've run WordCount using Quickstart with the FlinkRunner (locally and
>>> against a Flink cluster).
>>>
>>> Would give a +1 but waiting what Kenn finds.
>>>
>>> -Max
>>>
>>> On 23.10.18 07:11, Ahmet Altay wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:06 PM, Kenneth Knowles <[email protected]
>>> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >     You two did so much verification I had a hard time finding something
>>> >     where my help was meaningful! :-)
>>> >
>>> >     I did run the Nexmark suite on the DirectRunner against 2.7.0 and
>>> >     2.8.0 following
>>> >     
>>> > https://beam.apache.org/documentation/sdks/java/nexmark/#running-smoke-suite-on-the-directrunner-local
>>> >     
>>> > <https://beam.apache.org/documentation/sdks/java/nexmark/#running-smoke-suite-on-the-directrunner-local>.
>>> >
>>> >     It is admittedly a very silly test - the instructions leave
>>> >     immutability enforcement on, etc. But it does appear that there is a
>>> >     30% degradation in query 8 and 15% in query 9. These are the pure
>>> >     Java tests, not the SQL variants. The rest of the queries are close
>>> >     enough that differences are not meaningful.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > (It would be a good improvement for us to have alerts on daily
>>> > benchmarks if we do not have such a concept already.)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >     I would ask a little more time to see what is going on here - is it
>>> >     a real performance issue or an artifact of how the tests are
>>> >     invoked, or ...?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thank you! Much appreciated. Please let us know when you are done with
>>> > your investigation.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >     Kenn
>>> >
>>> >     On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 6:20 PM Ahmet Altay <[email protected]
>>> >     <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >         Hi all,
>>> >
>>> >         Did you have a chance to review this RC? Between me and Robert
>>> >         we ran a significant chunk of the validations. Let me know if
>>> >         you have any questions.
>>> >
>>> >         Ahmet
>>> >
>>> >         On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Ahmet Altay <[email protected]
>>> >         <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >             Hi everyone,
>>> >
>>> >             Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the
>>> >             version 2.8.0, as follows:
>>> >             [ ] +1, Approve the release
>>> >             [ ] -1, Do not approve the release (please provide specific
>>> >             comments)
>>> >
>>> >             The complete staging area is available for your review,
>>> >             which includes:
>>> >             * JIRA release notes [1],
>>> >             * the official Apache source release to be deployed to
>>> >             dist.apache.org <http://dist.apache.org> [2], which is
>>> >             signed with the key with fingerprint 6096FA00 [3],
>>> >             * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central
>>> >             Repository [4],
>>> >             * source code tag "v2.8.0-RC1" [5],
>>> >             * website pull request listing the release and publishing
>>> >             the API reference manual [6].
>>> >             * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source
>>> >             release to the dist.apache.org <http://dist.apache.org> [2].
>>> >             * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.8.0 release to help with
>>> >             validation [7].
>>> >
>>> >             The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. It is adopted
>>> >             by majority approval, with at least 3 PMC affirmative votes.
>>> >
>>> >             Thanks,
>>> >             Ahmet
>>> >
>>> >             [1]
>>> >             
>>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12343985
>>> >             
>>> > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12343985>
>>> >             [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.8.0
>>> >             <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.8.0>
>>> >             [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/KEYS
>>> >             <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/KEYS>
>>> >             [4]
>>> >             
>>> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1049/
>>> >             
>>> > <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1049/>
>>> >             [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.8.0-RC1
>>> >             <https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.8.0-RC1>
>>> >             [6] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/583
>>> >             <https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/583> and
>>> >             https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/6745
>>> >             <https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/6745>
>>> >             [7]
>>> >             
>>> > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1854712816
>>> >             
>>> > <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=1854712816>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >

Reply via email to