Does the global time out change for paid plans? I looked into it briefly but didn't see anything that would indicate it does.
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018, 2:25 AM Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think there's two approaches that we can take to mitigate the build & > test time problem, in one hand use a paid travis CI plan, in other improve > the unit tests in suites and only run a core set of tests, as we should do > on devices, but on this case we reduce coverage. > > https://travis-ci.com/plans > > Pedro. > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 6:53 PM YiZhi Liu <eazhi....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This makes sense. Thanks > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 6:36 PM kellen sunderland < > > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hey Zhennan, yes this is the exact problem, and I agree with your > points > > > completely. This is why when we first added Travis we attempted to > > > communicate that it would be informational only, and that we'd need to > > > iterate on the config before it would be a test that people should > > consider > > > 'required'. Apologies, we should have been more straightforward about > > > those tradeoffs. The strong point in favour of adding Travis in > > > informational mode was that we had a serious MacOS specific bug that we > > > wanted to verify was fixed. > > > > > > The good news is I've opened a PR which I hope will speed up these > builds > > > to the point that they won't rely on caching. Once it is merged it > would > > > be very helpful if you could rebase on this PR and test to ensure that > > > large changes no longer hit the global timeout without cache. > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12706 > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 2:48 AM Qin, Zhennan <zhennan....@intel.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi YiZhi and Kellen, > > > > > > > > From my point of view, travis should be able to get passed from a > > scratch > > > > build. Pending result on ccache hit/miss is not a good idea. For this > > PR, > > > > as it changed many header file, lots of files need be recompiled, > just > > > like > > > > a scratch build. I think that's the reason that travis timeout. This > > > should > > > > be fixed before enabling travis, as it will block any change to those > > > base > > > > header file. Again, it's not a special case with this PR only, you > can > > > find > > > > same problem on other PRs: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://travis-ci.org/apache/incubator-mxnet/builds/433172088?utm_source=github_status&utm_medium=notification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://travis-ci.org/apache/incubator-mxnet/builds/434404305?utm_source=github_status&utm_medium=notification > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Zhennan > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: YiZhi Liu [mailto:eazhi....@gmail.com] > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2018 5:15 AM > > > > To: eazhi....@gmail.com > > > > Cc: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > > > > Subject: Re: Time out for Travis CI > > > > > > > > while other PRs are all good. > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 2:13 PM YiZhi Liu <eazhi....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Honestly I don't know yet. I can help to investigate. Just given > the > > > > > evidence that, travis timeout every time it gets re-triggered - 2 > > > > > times at least. Correct me if I'm wrong @ Zhennan On Sat, Sep 29, > > 2018 > > > > > at 1:54 PM kellen sunderland <kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Reading over the PR I don't see what aspects would cause extra > > > > > > runtime YiZhi, could you point them out? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:46 PM YiZhi Liu <eazhi....@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kellen, I think this PR introduces extra runtime in CI, thus > > > > > > > causes the timeout. Which means, once merged, every PR later > will > > > > > > > see same timeout in travis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So shall we modify the changes to decrease the test running > time? > > > > > > > or just disable the Travis CI? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:17 PM Qin, Zhennan > > > > > > > <zhennan....@intel.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Kellen, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your explanation. Do you have a time plan to solve > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > timeout issue? Rebasing can't work for my case. Or shall we run > > it > > > > > > > silently to disallow it voting X for overall CI result? Because > > > > > > > most developers are used to ignore the PRs with 'X'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Zhennan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: kellen sunderland [mailto:kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com] > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 10:38 PM > > > > > > > > To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Time out for Travis CI > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Zhennan, you're safe to ignore Travis failures for now. > > > > > > > > They're > > > > > > > just informational. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reason you sometimes see quick builds and sometimes see > > slow > > > > > > > > builds > > > > > > > is that we're making use of ccache in between builds. If your > PR > > > > > > > is similar to what's in master you should build very quickly, > if > > > > > > > not it's going to take a while and likely time out. If you see > > > > > > > timeouts rebasing may speed things up. Unfortunately the > > timeouts > > > > > > > are global and we're not able to increase them. I'm hoping > that > > > > > > > adding artifact caching will speed up future builds to the > point > > > > > > > that test runs and builds can be executed in under the global > > limit > > > > (which is ~50 minutes). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Kellen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 4:05 PM Qin, Zhennan > > > > > > > > <zhennan....@intel.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi MXNet devs, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm struggled with new Travis CI for a while, it always run > > > > > > > > > time out for this PR: > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12530 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Most of the time, Jenkins CI can pass, while Travis can't > be > > > > > > > > > finished within 50 minutes. For this PR, it shouldn't > affect > > > > > > > > > much on the build time or unit test time. Also, I saw other > > PR > > > > has same problem, eg. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://travis-ci.org/apache/incubator-mxnet/builds/433172088? > > > > > > > > > utm_sour ce=github_status&utm_medium=notification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://travis-ci.org/apache/incubator-mxnet/builds/434404305? > > > > > > > > > utm_sour ce=github_status&utm_medium=notification > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > According to the time stamp from Travis, all passed PR are > > > > > > > > > within small code change, and can complete `make -j2` > within > > > > > > > > > 25s. But for timeout case, 'make -j2' will need about > 1600s. > > > > > > > > > Does Travis do incremental build for each test? Shall we > > > > > > > > > increase time limit for large PR? Can we add more time > stamp > > > > > > > > > for build and unites stage to > > > > > > > help understand what's going on there? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > > > > > > Zhennan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Yizhi Liu > > > > > > > DMLC member > > > > > > > Amazon Web Services > > > > > > > Vancouver, Canada > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Yizhi Liu > > > > > DMLC member > > > > > Amazon Web Services > > > > > Vancouver, Canada > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Yizhi Liu > > > > DMLC member > > > > Amazon Web Services > > > > Vancouver, Canada > > > > > > > > > -- > > Yizhi Liu > > DMLC member > > Amazon Web Services > > Vancouver, Canada > > >
