I am interested in this as well, but I haven't gotten to a point where I can have valuable input (I haven't tried other transports). I know of a third party that is interested in Arrow for HPC environments that could be interested in the proposal and I can see if they're interested in providing feedback.
I glanced at the document before but I'll go through again to see if there is anything I can comment on. # ------------------------------ # Aldrin https://github.com/drin/ https://gitlab.com/octalene https://keybase.io/octalene On Tuesday, February 27th, 2024 at 17:43, Paul Whalen <pgwha...@gmail.com> wrote: > As a potential "end user developer," (and aspiring contributor) this > immediately excited me when I first saw it. > > I work at a trading firm, and my team has developed an IPC mechanism for > efficiently transmitting pandas dataframes both remotely via TCP and > locally via shared memory, where the interface for the application > developer is the same for both. The data in the dataframes may change > rapidly, so when communicating locally via shared memory, if the shape of > the dataframe doesn't change, we update the memory in place, coordinating > between the producer and consumer via TCP. > > We intend to move away from our remote TCP mechanism towards Arrow Flight, > or a lighter-weight version of Arrow IPC. For the local shared memory > mechanism which we previously did not have a good answer for, it seems like > Disassociated Arrow IPC maps quite well to our problem. > > So some features that enable our use case are: > - Updating existing batches in place is supported > - The interface is pretty similar to Flight > > I'd imagine we're not the only financial firm to implement something like > this, given how widespread pandas usage is, so that could be a place to > seek feedback. > > As I was reading the proposal initially, I gleaned that the most important > audience was those writing interfaces to GPUs/remote memory/non-standard > transports/etc. And it wasn't clear to me whether updating batches in > place (and the producer/consumer coordination that comes with that) was > supported or encouraged as part of the proposal. But regardless, as an end > user, this seems like an easier and more efficient way to glue pieces in > the Arrow ecosystem together if it was adopted broadly. > > Paul > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 6:05 PM Matt Topol zotthewiz...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I'll continue my efforts of trying to reach out to other interested > > parties, but if anyone else here has any contacts or connections that they > > think might be interested please forward them the link to the Google doc. > > > > I really do want to get as much engagement and feedback as possible on > > this. > > > > Thanks! > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024, 6:38 PM Wes McKinney wesmck...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Have there been efforts to proactively reach out to other third parties > > > that might have an interest in this or be a potential user at some point? > > > There are a lot of interested parties in Arrow that may not actively > > > follow > > > the mailing list. > > > > > > Seems like folks from the Dask, Ray, RAPIDS (especially folks at NVIDIA > > > or > > > working on UCX), or other communities like that might have constructive > > > thoughts about this. DLPack (https://dmlc.github.io/dlpack/latest/) also > > > seems adjacent and worth reaching out to. Other ideas for projects or > > > companies that could be reached out to for feedback. > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 5:23 PM Antoine Pitrou anto...@python.org > > > wrote: > > > > > > > If there's no engagement, then I'm afraid it might mean that third > > > > parties have no interest in this. I don't really have any solution for > > > > generating engagement except nagging and pinging people explicitly :-) > > > > > > > > Le 27/02/2024 à 19:09, Matt Topol a écrit : > > > > > > > > > I would like to see the same Antoine, currently given the lack of > > > > > engagement (both for OR against) I was going to take the silence as > > > > > assent > > > > > and hope for non-Voltron Data PMC members to vote in this. > > > > > > > > > > If anyone has any suggestions on how we could potentially generate > > > > > more > > > > > engagement and discussion on this, please let me know as I want as > > > > > many > > > > > parties in the community as possible to be part of this. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks everyone. > > > > > > > > > > --Matt > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 12:48 PM Antoine Pitrou anto...@python.org > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd really like to see more engagement and criticism from > > > > > > non-Voltron > > > > > > Data parties before this is formally adopted as an Arrow spec. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > Antoine. > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 27/02/2024 à 18:35, Matt Topol a écrit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose a vote for us to officially adopt the protocol > > > > > > > described in the google doc[1] for Dissociated Arrow IPC > > > > > > > Transports. > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > proposal was originally discussed at 2. Once this proposal is > > > > > > > adopted, > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > will work on adding the necessary documentation to the Arrow > > > > > > > website > > > > > > > along > > > > > > > with examples etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Accept this Proposal > > > > > > > [ ] +0 > > > > > > > [ ] -1 Do not accept this proposal because... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you everyone! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]: > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHbnyK1r6KHpMOtEdIg1EZKNzHx-MVgUMOzB87GuXyk/edit#heading=h.38515dnp2bdb
publickey - octalene.dev@pm.me - 0x21969656.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
