[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRESOLVER-228?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17466825#comment-17466825
]
wei cai edited comment on MRESOLVER-228 at 12/30/21, 11:52 AM:
---------------------------------------------------------------
[~michael-o] [~ibabiankou]
Cool! Have read the comments in
[https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/142.]
Looks like we now have a road map:
* DFS -> BFS to make sure dependency tree no changes, might solve MRESOLVER-133
* BFS + Skip & Reconcile to make sure dependency tree no changes which is for
MRESOLVER-228
* Download artifacts in parallel which is for MRESOLVER-7
One question is, as Ivan pointed out in MRESOLVER-133 as below, it does not
have to use a BFS strategy to solve MRESOLVER-133. Shall we still need to go to
BFS?
-----------------------------------------------------------
This loop should iterate over reversed list of versions, it should only try to
get artifact descriptor and break as soon as got one successfully. If no
versions are available, then the build could be failed with appropriate message.
-----------------------------------------------------------
If we do not need to go with BFS, the road map would be:
* Ivan's proposal to solve MRESOLVER-133
* DFS + Skip & Reconcile to make sure dependency tree no changes which is for
MRESOLVER-228
PR: [https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/136] already implemented
this.
* Download artifacts in parallel which is for MRESOLVER-7
If we need go with BFS, I already did a BFS experiment before I submitted the
PR of DFS + Skip & Reconcile approach for MRESOLVER-228, let me prepare the
very first PR, the PR should include pure BFS solution, no skip, no reconcile,
then I will go with the BFS + Skip & Reconcile as the 2nd PR.
was (Author: wecai):
[~michael-o] [~ibabiankou]
Cool! Have read the comments in
[https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/142.]
Looks like we now have a road map:
* DFS -> BFS to make sure dependency tree no changes, might solve MRESOLVER-133
* BFS + Skip & Reconcile to make sure dependency tree no changes which is for
MRESOLVER-228
* Download artifacts in parallel which is for MRESOLVER-7
I already did a BFS experiment before I submitted the PR of DFS + Skip &
Reconcile approach for MRESOLVER-228, let me prepare the very first PR, the PR
should include pure BFS solution, no skip, no reconcile, then I will go with
the BFS + Skip & Reconcile.
> Improve the maven dependency resolution speed by a skip & reconcile approach
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: MRESOLVER-228
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRESOLVER-228
> Project: Maven Resolver
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Resolver
> Affects Versions: 1.7.2
> Reporter: wei cai
> Priority: Major
> Fix For: 1.8.0
>
> Attachments: Screen Shot 2021-11-27 at 12.58.26 PM.png, Screen Shot
> 2021-11-27 at 12.58.59 PM.png, Screen Shot 2021-11-27 at 12.59.32 PM.png
>
>
> When comes to resolve the huge amount of dependencies of an enterprise level
> project, the maven resolver is very slow to resolve the dependency
> graph/tree. Take one of our app as example, it could take *10minutes+ and 16G
> memory* to print out the result of {*}mvn dependency:tree{*}.
> This is because there are many dependencies declared in the project, and some
> of the dependencies would introduce *600+* transitive dependencies, and
> exclusions are widely used to solve dependency conflicts.
> By checking the
> [code|https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/blob/master/maven-resolver-impl/src/main/java/org/eclipse/aether/internal/impl/collect/DefaultDependencyCollector.java#L500],
> we know the exclusion is also part of the cache key. This means when the
> exclusions up the tree differs, the cached resolution result for the same GAV
> won't be picked up and need s to be recalculated.
> !Screen Shot 2021-11-27 at 12.58.26 PM.png!
> From above figure, we know:
> * In 1st case, D will be resolved only once as there are no exclusions/same
> exclusions up the tree.
> * In 2nd case, the B and C have different exclusions and D needs to be
> recalculated, if D is a heavy dependency which introduce many transitive
> dependencies, all D and its children needs to be recalculated. Recalculating
> all of these nodes introduces 2 issues:
> ** Slow in resolving dependencies.
> ** Lots of DependencyNodes cached (all calculated/recalculated nodes would
> be cached) and will consume huge memory.
> To improve the speed of maven resolver's dependency resolution, I
> implemented a skip & reconcile approach. Here is the *skip* part.
> !Screen Shot 2021-11-27 at 12.58.59 PM.png!
> From above figure, the 1st R is resolved at depth 3, and the 2nd R is
> resolved again because the depth is at 2 which is lower, the 3rd R at depth 3
> and the 4th R at depth 4 are simply skipped as R is already resolved at depth
> 2. This is because the same node with deeper depth is most likely won't be
> picked up by maven as maven employs a "{*}nearest{*} transitive dependency in
> the tree depth and the *first* in resolution" strategy.
> The 3rd R and 4th R will have children set as zero and marked as skipped by
> the R at depth 2 in 2nd tree path.
>
> Here is the *reconcile* part:
> !Screen Shot 2021-11-27 at 12.59.32 PM.png!
> When there are dependency conflicts, some of the skipped nodes need to be
> reconciled.
> In above figure, there are 4 tree paths.
> * The D1 (D with version 1) in the 1st tree path is get resolved, children
> of E and R at depth 3 are resolved and cached.
> * In the 2nd tree path, when resolving E & R of H, we simply skip these 2
> nodes as they are in deeper depth (depth: 4) than the E & R in 1st tree path.
> * In the 3rd tree path, a R node with lower path is resolved, and a E node
> at depth 5 is skipped.
> * In the 4th path, a D2 (D with version 2) node is resolved, as the depth is
> lower than D1, so maven will pick D2, this means the E & R's children cached
> in tree depth 1 should be {*}discarded{*}.
> Thus we might need to reconcile the E & R nodes in 2nd, 3rd and 4th tree
> paths. Here only E in 2nd tree path needs to be reconciled. This is because:
> * R in 3rd tree path won't be picked up as there is already a R in 2nd tree
> path with a lower depth.
> * E in 3rd tree path won't be picked up as it is enough to reconcile the E
> in 2nd tree path as the E in 2nd tree path is deeper than E in 3rd tree path.
> Here is what we've updated in the maven-resolver logic:
> # Resolve dependencies by leveraging a skip approach. The node in deeper
> depth will be skipped if a node with same GAV has been resolved with a lower
> depth.
> # Cloned the nodes in step 1.
> Use maven's ConflictResolver (Transformer) to transform the cloned nodes and
> find out the conflict winners & the nodes to reconcile.
> Ex, D1 conflicts with D2 in above digram.
> E in 2nd tree path will be reconciled.
> # Reconcile all skipped nodes identified in above step.
>
> After we enabled the resolver patch in maven, we are seeing 10% ~70% build
> time reduced for different projects depend on how complex the dependencies
> are, and the result of *mvn dependency:tree* and *mvn dependency:list* remain
> the same.
> We've verified the resolver performance patch leveraging an automation
> solution to certify 2000+ apps of our company by comparing the *mvn
> dependency:tree* and *mvn dependency:list* result with/without the
> performance patch.
> Please help review the PR.
> [https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/136]
>
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
