+1 to include the performance benchmark code. It provides an opportunity for community to use it and develop on it (a must needed when Geode is termed as performant data product).
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 6:35 PM Robert Houghton <rhough...@pivotal.io> wrote: > Let's not vote until there is a call to vote, folks... > > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 18:31 Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > I would characterize my vote as 0. I really don’t care either way. Just > > sharing I think they have no value in a release. > > > > > On Jan 16, 2020, at 6:08 PM, Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > > > > > Geode PMC has 52 members. If this were a vote, it looks like the > > results would have been: > > > +1: 2 (Anthony, Dan) > > > -1: 1 (Jake) > > > > > > If the next release manager were to go ahead and put geode-benchmarks > in > > the Geode 1.12.0 source release, at least 3 PMC members would need to be > > willing to vote +1. So it sounds like we need a few more of the other 49 > > PMC members to weigh in on this discussion. > > > > > > To summarize so far: > > > > > > Proposal: > > > - add a geode-benchmarks-n.n.n-src.tgz artifact to all Geode releases > > going forward, starting with 1.12.0 > > > > > > Arguments in favor: > > > - why not? > > > - it’s already public > > > - we should default to including all things > > > - it might be of interest to the user community > > > - it might encourage contributions back to further improve it > > > - it is required by CI, which is already included > > > - Apache mandates that source releases must include test code too > > > > > > Arguments against: > > > - doing nothing is less work > > > - it will burden PMC members with additional work to validate and vote > > on RCs > > > - nobody outside the dev community has asked for it to be included > > > - maybe it’s not ready > > > - maybe it’s not documented well enough > > > - it’s not needed to use Geode > > > - Apache's legal separation between dev stuff and public release stuff > > > - legal or license review may be not have been conducted yet > > > > > > > > >>> On Jan 16, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> If geode-benchmarks is included, that implies that an RC cannot be > > >> approved until reviewers can successfully run the benchmark suite from > > the > > >> geode-benchmarks source distribution. Is that what we want? > > >> > > >> I think it would be sufficient to run the tests of the benchmarks, eg > > >> ./gradlew test > > >> > > >>> Deploying CI pipelines and running Benchmarks seems like a prime > > example > > >> of things we’d be happy to help others in the community with on the > dev > > >> list — but not something we would expect questions about on the user > > list. > > >> > > >> I think it would be valuable to share our benchmarks with the geode > user > > >> community. The benchmark framework itself (the harness module) is a > > fairly > > >> generic benchmarking framework than can be used to benchmark anything > > that > > >> can be spun up using java. The geode-benchmark module has geode > > benchmarks > > >> that could be used for testing specific hardware, for example. > > >> > > >> -Dan > > >> > > >>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:37 PM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> When voting on RC candidates, PMC members "are required to download > the > > >>> signed source code package, compile it as provided, and test the > > resulting > > >>> executable on their own platform”. > > >>> > > >>> If geode-benchmarks is included, that implies that an RC cannot be > > >>> approved until reviewers can successfully run the benchmark suite > from > > the > > >>> geode-benchmarks source distribution. Is that what we want? > > >>> > > >>> Similarly, if CI is included, that seems to imply that an RC cannot > be > > >>> approved until reviewers can stand up their own pipeline from the > > geode/ci > > >>> source distribution. Is that what we want? > > >>> > > >>> So far there doesn’t seem to be consensus on what to include in a > Geode > > >>> source release, but let’s keep in mind that anything we add to the > > release > > >>> becomes an Act Of The Foundation and is held to a higher standard. > > Apache > > >>> makes a clear distinction between between development activity and > > official > > >>> releases to the public. Development activity is anything that should > > stay > > >>> within the dev list. Deploying CI pipelines and running Benchmarks > > seems > > >>> like a prime example of things we’d be happy to help others in the > > >>> community with on the dev list — but not something we would expect > > >>> questions about on the user list. > > >>> > > >>>> On Jan 16, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> We are supposed to be including all of the source necessary to test > > Geode > > >>>> in the source release [1] - I think that would include benchmarks as > > >>> well. > > >>>> > > >>>> I don't really see any compelling reason *not* to include the > > benchmarks, > > >>>> let's go ahead and get them into our source release! > > >>>> > > >>>> [1] > > >>>> > > >>> > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#what-must-every-release-contain > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:26 PM Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> +1 for no changes > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:57 PM Jacob Barrett <jbarr...@pivotal.io > > > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> We can live in areas of gray that don’t require any changes. > Nobody > > is > > >>>>>> asking for benchmarks so let’s not do work to add them. Nobody is > > >>>>>> complaining they CI is included so let’s not do work to remove > > them. Is > > >>>>> it > > >>>>>> ideal, meh... > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Jan 15, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Mark Hanson <mhan...@pivotal.io> > > wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Just my two cents. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I think that we should probably strip CI into a separate repo. > The > > key > > >>>>>> indicator is that if something were wrong in the CI yaml, would I > > hold > > >>> a > > >>>>>> release for that? I think no. So that suggests to me it is a > > separate > > >>>>>> thing. Same goes for benchmarks. If we were failing a benchmark I > > would > > >>>>> be > > >>>>>> concerned, but if the script were broken, would I hold the > release? > > I > > >>>>> think > > >>>>>> no as well. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I think that says that the CI code should also be a separate > repo. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Thanks, > > >>>>>>> Mark > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 2020, at 10:21 PM, Jacob Barrett < > jbarr...@pivotal.io> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Until someone outside of the geode ci community is asking for > it I > > >>>>> just > > >>>>>> don’t see utility in going through the motions of making a release > > for > > >>>>> it. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 2020, at 10:13 PM, Owen Nichols < > onich...@pivotal.io > > > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> The source is already public, so on some level a source > release > > is > > >>>>> no > > >>>>>> different from a git tag. Benchmarks has matured enough that I > > think > > >>> it > > >>>>>> makes sense to at least start branching and tagging the > > >>> geode-benchmarks > > >>>>>> repo to capture exactly what was used in that Geode release. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Others in the dev and user community may find the benchmarks > > useful > > >>>>> in > > >>>>>> other ways than we use them. While our focus for CI is on tuning > > for > > >>>>>> repeatability, someone else might just want a load generator to > > break > > >>> in > > >>>>> a > > >>>>>> new cluster or get some rough numbers. Some might want to get > under > > >>> the > > >>>>>> hood and tinker and tune, or contribute their own benchmarks, with > > the > > >>>>>> understanding that it’s not a turnkey or standalone product, but a > > tool > > >>>>>> that requires getting your hands dirty. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Would a “1 page” readme with a few tips on “how to run on a > > laptop” > > >>>>> be > > >>>>>> enough to let other interested contributors help get > > geode-benchmarks > > >>> to > > >>>>> a > > >>>>>> “better state”? > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 2020, at 9:38 PM, Jacob Barrett < > jbarr...@pivotal.io > > > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I don’t think the benchmarks provide any material benefit to a > > user > > >>>>>> in their current state. They are heavily tuned for our CI process > > which > > >>>>>> relies on very beefy machines. Usage on other hardware will > require > > >>> more > > >>>>>> tuning. I don’t think it’s worth putting the source in the release > > >>> until > > >>>>>> they are in a better state. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> -Jake > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 14, 2020, at 4:14 PM, Dan Smith <dsm...@pivotal.io> > > >>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 4:11 PM Owen Nichols < > > >>> onich...@pivotal.io > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I believe the desire is to include the source code for > > >>>>>> geode-benchmarks as > > >>>>>>>>>>>> part of the official geode release, much like how we include > > >>>>>> geode-examples. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Oh! I thought you meant running the benchmarks in the release > > >>>>>> pipeline - I > > >>>>>>>>>>> think last release we were running them but decided they were > > too > > >>>>>> flaky to > > >>>>>>>>>>> use. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> +1 to including the benchmark source in the source release. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> -Dan > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > >
