why not use pypiserver? it is compatible server for pip.use it can install pack like pip install -i http://xxxx/ mxnet --pre
Skalicky, Sam <sska...@amazon.com.invalid> 于2020年1月7日周二 上午2:55写道： > Thats a good idea Leonard, we can have a static html page in the bucket > for this. But keep in mind pip wheels do have a COMMIT_HASH file packaged > inside. So we can always figure out which commit/build a user has by > dumping this file from the mxnet installation. File name of the pip wheel > is not so important. > > Sam > > > On Jan 6, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Lausen, Leonard <lau...@amazon.com.INVALID> > wrote: > > > > Consider a user finds a bug in a nightly version but we can't narrow > down the > > version of mxnet used as the name is constant over time. Or users wan't > to > > revert back to the previous nightly version installed but don't know > which date > > it was from due to constant name. > > > > Instead I suggest we introduce an autogenerated page like > > https://download.pytorch.org/whl/nightly/cu101/torch_nightly.html > > > > Then "pip install -f URLTOPAGE mxnet" will install the latest available > version. > > Maybe the team maintaining the S3 bucket can reconsider creating such > page for > > the intermediate time until the CD based nighlty build is operating. > > > > On Mon, 2020-01-06 at 10:01 -0800, Lin Yuan wrote: > >> +1 for a nightly pip with fixed name. > >> > >> We need this to track mxnet integration with other packages such as > Horovod. > >> > >> Sam, when do you think we can have this nightly build with a fixed name? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Lin > >> > >> On Sun, Jan 5, 2020 at 7:48 PM Skalicky, Sam <sska...@amazon.com.invalid > > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Tao, > >>> > >>> We dont have this yet, but we did think about putting the latest > wheels in > >>> a specific place in the s3 bucket so they are always updated. > Initially we > >>> decided not to do this since the main MXNet CD should have been fixed. > But > >>> since its still not fixed yet, we might try and go ahead and do this. > >>> > >>> Sam > >>> > >>> On Jan 5, 2020, at 6:02 PM, Lv, Tao A <tao.a...@intel.com<mailto: > >>> tao.a...@intel.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> How to install the latest available build of a flavor without > specifying > >>> the build date? Something like `pip install mxnet --pre`. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> -tao > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Skalicky, Sam <sska...@amazon.com.INVALID<mailto: > >>> sska...@amazon.com.INVALID>> > >>> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 2:09 AM > >>> To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org<mailto: > dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org> > >>> Subject: Re: Stopping nightly releases to Pypi > >>> > >>> Hi Haibin, > >>> > >>> You typed the correct URLs, the cu100 build has been failing since > >>> December 30th but other builds have succeeded. The wheels are being > >>> delivered into a public bucket that anyone with an AWS account can > access > >>> and go poke around, here’s the URL for web access: > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://s3.console.aws.amazon.com/s3/buckets/apache-mxnet/dist/2020-01-01/dist/?region=us-west-2&tab=overview > >>> > >>> You will have to log into your AWS account to access it however (which > >>> means you’ll need an AWS account). > >>> > >>> It looks like only the following flavors are available for 2020-01-01: > >>> mxnet > >>> mxnet-cu92 > >>> mxnet-cu92mkl > >>> mxnet-mkl > >>> > >>> Sam > >>> > >>> On Jan 4, 2020, at 9:06 PM, Haibin Lin <haibin.lin....@gmail.com > <mailto: > >>> haibin.lin....@gmail.com><mailto:haibin.lin....@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>> I was trying the nightly builds, but none of them is available: > >>> > >>> pip3 install > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-01/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200101-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> --user > >>> < > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-01/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200101-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl--user > >>>> > >>> pip3 install > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-02/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200102-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> --user > >>> < > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-02/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200102-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl--user > >>>> > >>> pip3 install > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-03/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200103-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> --user > >>> < > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-03/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200103-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl--user > >>>> > >>> pip3 install > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-04/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200104-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> --user > >>> < > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-04/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200104-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl--user > >>>> > >>> > >>> ERROR: Could not install requirement mxnet-cu100==1.6.0b20200103 from > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-03/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200103-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> because of HTTP error 404 Client Error: Not Found for url: > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-03/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200103-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> for URL > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2020-01-03/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20200103-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> > >>> Please let me know if I typed wrong URLs. > >>> > >>> 1. The discoverability of available nightly builds needs improvement. > If > >>> someone can help write a script to list all links that exist, that > would be > >>> very helpful. > >>> 2. If any nightly build is not built successfully, how do the community > >>> know the reason of the failure, and potentially offer helps? Currently > I > >>> don't have much visibility of the nightly build status. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Haibin > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 5:47 PM Pedro Larroy < > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com > >>> <mailto:pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Just to clarify, the current CI is quite an overhead to maintain for > >>> several reasons, this complexity is overkill for CD. Jenkins also has > >>> constant plugin upgrades, security vulnerabilities, has to be restarted > >>> from time to time as it stops working... and to make binary builds > from an > >>> environment which runs unsafe code, I don't think is good practice. So > for > >>> that, having a separate Jenkins, CodeBuild, Drone or using a separate > >>> Jenkins node is the right solution. Agree with you that is just a > >>> scheduler, but somebody is making efforts to keep it running. If you > have > >>> the appetite and resources to duplicate it for CD please go ahead. > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 3:25 PM Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@gmail.com > >>> <mailto:marco.g.ab...@gmail.com>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Regarding your point of finding somebody to maintain the solution: At > >>> Apache we usually retire things if there's no maintainer, since that > >>> indicates that the feature/system is not of enough interest to warrant > >>> maintenance - otherwise, someone would step up. > >>> > >>> While assistance in the form of a fix is always appreciated, the fix > still > >>> has to conform with the way this project and Apache operates. Next > time I'd > >>> recommend to contribute time on improving the existing community > solution > >>> instead of developing an internal system. > >>> > >>> -Marco > >>> > >>> Marco de Abreu <marco.g.ab...@gmail.com<mailto:marco.g.ab...@gmail.com > >> > >>> schrieb am Sa., 4. Jan. 2020, > >>> 00:21: > >>> > >>> Sam, while I understand that this solution was developed out of > necessity, > >>> my question why a new system has been developed instead of fixing the > >>> existing one or adapting the solution. CodeBuild is a scheduler in the > same > >>> fashion as Jenkins is. It runs code. So you can adapt it to Jenkins > without > >>> much hassle. > >>> > >>> I'm not volunteering for this - why should I? The role of a PMC member > is > >>> to steer the direction of the project. Just because a manager points > >>> towards a certain direction, if doesn't mean that they're going to do > it. > >>> > >>> Apparently there was enough time at some point to develop a new > solution > >>> from scratch. It might have been a solution for your internal team and > >>> that's fine, but upgrading it "temporarily" to be the advertised way > on the > >>> official website is something different. > >>> > >>> I won't argue about how the veto can be enforced. I think it's in the > best > >>> interest of the project if we try working on a solution instead of > spending > >>> time on trying to figure out the power of the PMC. > >>> > >>> Pedro, that's certainly a step towards the right direction. But > committers > >>> would also need access to the control plane of the system - to trigger, > >>> stop and audit builds. We could go down that road, but i think the > fewer > >>> systems, the better - also for the sake of maintainability. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Marco > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com<mailto: > >>> pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com>> schrieb am Fr., 3. Jan. > >>> 2020, > >>> 20:55: > >>> > >>> I'm not involved in such efforts, but one possibility is to have the > yaml > >>> files that describe the pipelines for CD in the Apache repositories, > would > >>> that be acceptable from the Apache POV? In the end they should be very > thin > >>> and calling the scripts that are part of the CD packages. > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 6:56 AM Marco de Abreu < > marco.g.ab...@gmail.com > >>> <mailto:marco.g.ab...@gmail.com>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Agree, but the question how a non Amazonian is able to maintain and > access > >>> the system is still open. As it stands right now, the community has > taken a > >>> step back and loses some control if we continue down that road. > >>> > >>> I personally am disapproving of that approach since committers are no > >>> longer in control of that process. So far it seems like my questions > were > >>> skipped and further actions have been taken. As openness and the > community > >>> having control are part of our graduation criteria, I'm putting in my > veto > >>> with a grace period until 15th of January. Please bring the system > into a > >>> state that aligns with Apache values or revert the changes. > >>> > >>> -Marco > >>> > >>> Pedro Larroy <pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com<mailto: > >>> pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com>> schrieb am Fr., 3. Jan. > >>> 2020, > >>> 03:33: > >>> > >>> CD should be separate from CI for security reasons in any case. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 10:04 AM Marco de Abreu < > marco.g.ab...@gmail.com > >>> <mailto:marco.g.ab...@gmail.com>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Could you elaborate how a non-Amazonian is able to access, maintain and > >>> review the CodeBuild pipeline? How come we've diverted from the > community > >>> agreed-on standard where the public Jenkins serves for the purpose of > >>> testing and releasing MXNet? I'd be curious about the issues you're > >>> encountering with Jenkins CI that led to a non-standard solution. > >>> > >>> -Marco > >>> > >>> > >>> Skalicky, Sam <sska...@amazon.com.invalid<mailto: > >>> sska...@amazon.com.invalid>> schrieb am Sa., 7. > >>> Dez. > >>> 2019, > >>> 18:39: > >>> > >>> Hi MXNet Community, > >>> > >>> We have been working on getting nightly builds fixed and made available > >>> again. We’ve made another system using AWS CodeBuild & S3 to work > around > >>> the problems with Jenkins CI, PyPI, etc. It is currently building all > the > >>> flavors and publishing to an S3 bucket here: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://us-west-2.console.aws.amazon.com/s3/buckets/apache-mxnet/dist/?region=us-west-2 > >>> > >>> There are folders for each set of nightly builds, try out the wheels > >>> starting today 2019-12-07. Builds start at 1:30am PT (9:30am > >>> GMT) > >>> and > >>> arrive in the bucket 30min-2hours later. Inside each folder are the > wheels > >>> for each flavor of MXNet. Currently we’re only building for linux, > builds > >>> for windows/Mac will come later. > >>> > >>> If you want to download the wheels easily you can use a URL in the form > >>> of: > >>> https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> <YYYY-MM-DD>/dist/<mxnet_build>-1.6.0b<YYYYMMDD>-py2.py3-none- > >>> manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> > >>> Heres a set of links for today’s builds > >>> > >>> (Plain mxnet, no mkl no cuda) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> (mxnet-mkl > >>> < > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-mkl > >>>> > >>> < > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-mkl > >>> > >>> ) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> (mxnet-cuXXX > >>> < > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-cuXXX > >>>> > >>> < > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-cuXXX > >>> > >>> ) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu90-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu92-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu100-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> (mxnet-cuXXXmkl > >>> < > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-cuXXXmkl > >>>> > >>> < > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl(mxnet-cuXXXmkl > >>> > >>> ) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu90mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu92mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu100mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet_cu101mkl-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> > >>> You can easily install these pip wheels in your system either by > >>> downloading them to your machine first and then installing by > >>> doing: > >>> > >>> pip install /path/to/downloaded/wheel.whl > >>> > >>> Or you can install directly by just giving the link to pip like > >>> this: > >>> > >>> pip install > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://apache-mxnet.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/dist/2019-12-07/dist/mxnet-1.6.0b20191207-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> > >>> Credit goes to everyone involved (in no particular order) Rakesh > Vasudevan > >>> Zach Kimberg Manu Seth Sheng Zha Jun Wu Pedro Larroy Chaitanya Bapat > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> Sam > >>> > >>> > >>> On Dec 5, 2019, at 1:16 AM, Lausen, Leonard <lau...@amazon.com.INVALID > >>> <mailto:lau...@amazon.com.INVALID> <mailto:lau...@amazon.com.INVALID>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> We don't loose pip by hosting on S3. We just don't host nightly > releases > >>> on Pypi servers and mirror them to several hundred mirrors immediately > >>> after each build is published which is very expensive for the Pypi > project.. > >>> People > >>> can > >>> still > >>> install the nightly builds with pip by specifying the -f option. > >>> > >>> Uploading weekly releases to Pypi will reduce the cost for Pypi by ~75% > >>> [1]. It may be acceptable to Pypi, but does it make sense for us? I'm > not > >>> convinced weekly release on Pypi is a good idea. Consider one release > is > >>> buggy, users will need to wait for 7 days for a fix. It doesn't provide > >>> good user experience. > >>> If someone has a stronger conviction about the value of weekly > releases on > >>> Pypi, that person shall please go ahead and propose it in a separate > >>> discussion thread. > >>> > >>> Currently we don't have generally working nightly builds to Pypi and > as a > >>> matter of fact we know that we can't have them due to Pypi's policy > and our > >>> apparent need for large binaries. Given this fact and that no > objection was > >>> raised by > >>> 2019-12-05 at 05:42 UTC, I conclude we have lazy consensus on stopping > >>> upload attempts of nightly builds to Pypi. > >>> > >>> With consensus established, we can change the CI job to stop trying to > >>> upload the nightly builds and then request Pypi to increase the limit. > >>> Then > >>> we > >>> have one > >>> less blocker for the 1.6 release. > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> Leonard > >>> > >>> [1]: Lower cost due to less releases, but higher cost due to 500MB -> > >>> 800MB limit increase. Assuming that the limit increase translates into > >>> actually larger binaries. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 22:20 +0100, Marco de Abreu wrote: > >>> Are weekly releases an option? It was brought up as concern that we > might > >>> lose pip as a pretty common distribution channel where people consume > >>> nightly builds. I don't feel like that concern has been properly > addressed > >>> so far. > >>> > >>> -Marco > >>> > >>> Lausen, Leonard <lau...@amazon.com.invalid<mailto: > >>> lau...@amazon.com.invalid><mailto: > >>> lau...@amazon.com.invalid<mailto:lau...@amazon.com.invalid>>> schrieb > am > >>> Mi., 4. Dez. 2019, > >>> 04:09: > >>> > >>> As a simple POC to test distribution, you can try installing MXNet > based > >>> on these 3 URLs: > >>> > >>> pip install --no-cache-dir > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://mxnet-dev.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> pip install --no-cache-dir > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://mxnet-dev.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> pip install --no-cache-dir > >>> https://d19zq12jzu4w95.cloudfront.net/ > >>> mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> < > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://d19zq12jzu4w95.cloudfront.net/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> > >>> < > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://d19zq12jzu4w95.cloudfront.net/mxnet_cu101-1.5.1.post0-py2.py3-none-manylinux1_x86_64.whl > >>> > >>> > >>> where --no-cache-dir prevents caching the downloaded file, for the > purpose > >>> of testing. (cu101 chosen based on large size) > >>> > >>> The first URL uses standard S3 bucket in US. The second uses > >>> S3 > >>> Accelerate > >>> based > >>> on CloudFront CDN. And the third uses CloudFront CDN. I'm adding the > third > >>> URL, as S3 Accelerate may or may not use all new CloudFront endpoints > yet. > >>> > >>> Regarding voting: Uploading to Pypi is currently impossible, which is a > >>> reality (so there is no option to continue as we do currently). Pypi > folks > >>> indicated they will unblock our uploads to Pypi once we stop uploading > >>> nightly releases and taking up 20% of their ressources [1]. > >>> > >>> If there are any shortcomings or problems identified with uploading to > S3, > >>> we can work to address them. But for now, status quo is broken and this > >>> seems the only solution addressing Pypi's problem. > >>> > >>> I don't mind if you state that you object to lazy consensus and start a > >>> vote. If your "maybe [...] start a proper vote" was supposed to be an > >>> objection to lazy consensus, please state so clearly (I'm not sure if > >>> "maybe" > >>> qualifies > >>> as > >>> objection). Though I think it only makes sense with at least 2 options > to > >>> vote on. Status quo is not a meaningful option, as it is already > broken. > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> Leonard > >>> > >>> [1]: > >>> > >>> https://github.com/pypa/pypi-support/issues/50#issuecomment-560479706 > >>> > >>> On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 19:28 +0100, Marco de Abreu wrote: > >>> Excellent! Could we maybe come up with a POC and a quick writeup and > then > >>> start a proper vote after everyone verified that it covers their > use-cases? > >>> -Marco > >>> > >>> Sheng Zha <zhash...@apache.org<mailto:zhash...@apache.org>> schrieb am > >>> Di., 3. Dez. 2019, > >>> 19:24: > >>> > >>> Yes, there is. We can also make it easier to access by using a > >>> geo-location based DNS server so that China users are directed to that > >>> local mirror. The rest of the world is already covered by the global > >>> cloudfront. > >>> > >>> -sz > >>> > >>> On 2019/12/03 18:22:22, Marco de Abreu < marco.g.ab...@gmail.com > <mailto: > >>> marco.g.ab...@gmail.com> > >>> > >>> wrote: > >>> Isn't there an s3 endpoint in Beijing? > >>> > >>> It seems like this topic still warrants some discussion and thus I'd > >>> > >>> prefer > >>> if we don't move forward with lazy consensus. > >>> > >>> -Marco > >>> > >>> Tao Lv <mutou...@gmail.com<mailto:mutou...@gmail.com>> schrieb am > Di., 3. > >>> Dez. 2019, > >>> 14:31: > >>> > >>> * For pypi, we can use mirrors. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 9:28 PM Tao Lv <mutou...@gmail.com<mailto: > >>> mutou...@gmail.com>> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> As we have many users in China, I'm considering the accessibility of > S3. > >>> For pip, we can mirrors. > >>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:24 PM Lausen, Leonard > >>> > >>> <lau...@amazon.com.invalid<mailto:lau...@amazon.com.invalid> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> I would like to remind everyone that lazy consensus is assumed if no > >>> objections are raised before 2019-12-05 at 05:42 UTC. There has been > some > >>> > >>> discussion > >>> about > >>> the proposal, but to my understanding no objections were raised. > >>> If the proposal is accepted, MXNet releases would be installed via pip > >>> install mxnet > >>> > >>> And release candidates via > >>> > >>> pip install --pre mxnet > >>> > >>> (or with the respective cuda version specifier appended etc.) > >>> > >>> To obtain releases built automatically from the master branch, users > would > >>> need to specify something like "-f > >>> http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-X/nightly.html"; option to pip. > >>> Best regards > >>> Leonard > >>> > >>> On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 05:42 +0000, Lausen, Leonard wrote: > >>> Hi MXNet Community, > >>> > >>> since more than 2 months our binary Python nightly releases > >>> > >>> published > >>> on Pypi > >>> are broken. The problem is that our binaries exceed Pypi's size limit. > >>> Decreasing the binary size by adding compression breaks > >>> > >>> third-party > >>> libraries > >>> loading libmxnet.so > >>> > >>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16193 > >>> Sheng requested Pypi to increase their size limit: > >>> https://github.com/pypa/pypi-support/issues/50 > >>> > >>> Currently "the biggest cost for PyPI from [the many MXNet binaries with > >>> nightly release to Pypi] is the bandwidth consumed when several hundred > >>> mirrors attempt to mirror each release immediately after it's > published". > >>> So Pypi is not inclined to allow us to upload even larger binaries on a > >>> nightly schedule. > >>> Their compromise is to allow it on a weekly cadence. > >>> > >>> However, I would like the community to revisit the necessity of > releasing > >>> pre- release binaries to Pypi on a nightly (or weekly) cadence. > >>> > >>> Instead, we > >>> can > >>> release nightly binaries ONLY to a public S3 bucket and instruct users > to > >>> install from there. On our side, we only need to prepare a html > document > >>> that contains links to all released nightly binaries. > >>> Finally users will install the nightly releases via > >>> > >>> pip install --pre mxnet-cu101 -f > >>> > >>> http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-cu101/ > >>> nightly.html > >>> > >>> Instead of > >>> > >>> pip install --pre mxnet-cu101 > >>> > >>> Of course proper releases and release candidates should still be made > >>> available via Pypi. Thus releases would be installed via > >>> > >>> pip install mxnet-cu101 > >>> > >>> And release candidates via > >>> > >>> pip install --pre mxnet-cu101 > >>> > >>> This will substantially reduce the costs of the Pypi project and in > fact > >>> matches the installation experience provided by PyTorch. I don't think > the > >>> benefit of not including "-f > >>> > >>> http://mxnet.s3.amazonaws.com/mxnet-cu101/nightly.html"; > >>> matches the costs we currently externalize to the Pypi team. > >>> > >>> This suggestion seems uncontroversial to me. Thus I would like to start > >>> lazy consensus. If there are no objections, I will assume lazy > >>> > >>> consensus on > >>> stopping > >>> nightly releases to Pypi in 72hrs. > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> Leonard > >>> > >>> > >
