Thanks Andrew. Please make this a blocker and -1 the thread if you think we need a new RC.
- Cham On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 3:27 PM Andrew Pilloud <apill...@google.com> wrote: > I was just running the Beam SQL demo. I found one query fails with "the > keyCoder of a GroupByKey must be deterministic" and another just hangs. I > opened an issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-6224 Not sure > if this calls for canceling the release or just a release note (SQL is > still experimental). I'm continuing to track down the root cause, but am > tied up with the Beam Meetup in SFO today. > > Andrew > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 3:32 PM Ruoyun Huang <ruo...@google.com> wrote: > >> +1, Looking forward to the release! >> >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:09 AM Chamikara Jayalath <chamik...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I ran Beam RC verification script [1] and updated the validation >>> spreadsheet [2]. I think the current release candidate looks good. >>> >>> So +1 for the release. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Cham >>> >>> [1] >>> https://github.com/apache/beam/blob/master/release/src/main/scripts/run_rc_validation.sh >>> [2] >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=2053422529 >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:19 AM Ismaël Mejía <ieme...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Looking at the dates on the Spark runner git log there was a PR merged >>>> to change Spark translation from classes to URNs. I cannot see how this can >>>> impact performance. Looking at the other queries in the dashboards, there >>>> seems to be a great variability in the executions of the Spark runner to >>>> the point of feeling we don't have guarantees anymore. I wonder if this was >>>> because of other loads shared in the server(s), or because our sample is >>>> too small for the standard deviation. >>>> >>>> I would proceed with the release, the real question is if we can >>>> somehow constraint the execution of this tests to have a more consistent >>>> output. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 4:10 PM Etienne Chauchot <echauc...@apache.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> Regarding query7 in spark: >>>>> - there doesn't seem to be a functional regression: query passes and >>>>> output size is still the same >>>>> >>>>> - Also the performance degradation seems to be only on spark, the >>>>> other runners do not seem to suffer from it. >>>>> >>>>> - performance degradation seems to be constant from 11/12 so we can >>>>> eliminate temporary load on the jenkins server that would generate delays >>>>> in Max transform. >>>>> >>>>> => query7 uses Max transform, fanout and side inputs, has one of these >>>>> parts recently (11/12/18) changed in spark? >>>>> >>>>> Etienne >>>>> >>>>> Le jeudi 06 décembre 2018 à 21:32 -0800, Chamikara Jayalath a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> Udi or anybody else who is familiar about Nexmark, please -1 the vote >>>>> thread if you think this particular performance regression for >>>>> Spark/Direct >>>>> runners is a blocker. Otherwise I think we can continue the vote. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Cham >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 6:19 PM Chamikara Jayalath < >>>>> chamik...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Are either of these regressions due to known issues ? If not should >>>>> they be considered release blockers ? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Cham >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 6:11 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> For DirectRunner there are regressions in query 7 sql direct runner >>>>> batch mode >>>>> <https://apache-beam-testing.appspot.com/explore?dashboard=5084698770407424&widget=732741424&container=411089194> >>>>> (2x) >>>>> and streaming mode (5x). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 5:59 PM Udi Meiri <eh...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I see a regression for query 7 spark runner batch mode >>>>> <https://apache-beam-testing.appspot.com/explore?dashboard=5138380291571712&widget=1782465104&container=462502368> >>>>> on >>>>> about 2018-11-13. >>>>> [image: image.png] >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 2:46 AM Chamikara Jayalath < >>>>> chamik...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> Please review and vote on the release candidate #1 for the version >>>>> 2.9.0, 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 >>>>> [2], which is signed with the key with fingerprint EEAC70DF3D0BC23B >>>>> [3], >>>>> * all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven Central Repository [4], >>>>> * source code tag "v2.9.0-RC1" [5], >>>>> * website pull request listing the release [6] and publishing the API >>>>> reference manual [7]. >>>>> * Python artifacts are deployed along with the source release to the >>>>> dist.apache.org [2]. >>>>> * Validation sheet with a tab for 2.9.0 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, >>>>> Cham >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12319527&version=12344258 >>>>> [2] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/beam/2.9.0/ >>>>> [3] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/beam/KEYS >>>>> [4] >>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachebeam-1054/ >>>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/beam/tree/v2.9.0-RC1 >>>>> [6] https://github.com/apache/beam/pull/7215 >>>>> [7] https://github.com/apache/beam-site/pull/584 >>>>> [8] >>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qk-N5vjXvbcEk68GjbkSZTR8AGqyNUM-oLFo_ZXBpJw/edit#gid=2053422529 >>>>> >>>>> >> >> -- >> ================ >> Ruoyun Huang >> >>
