Absolutely, it will be marked experimental until we see some people using it and can get more real-world feedback.
There's also already a couple things that will be followed-up on after the initial adoption for expansion which were discussed in the comments. On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 11:42 AM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > I think let's try again. Would it be reasonable to declare this > 'experimental' for the time being, just as we did with Flight/Flight > SQL/etc? > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2024, at 15:24, Matt Topol wrote: > > Hey All, It's been another month and we've gotten a whole bunch of > feedback > > and engagement on the document from a variety of individuals. Myself and > a > > few others have proactively attempted to reach out to as many third > parties > > as we could, hoping to pull more engagement also. While it would be great > > to get even more feedback, the comments have slowed down and we haven't > > gotten anything in a few days at this point. > > > > If there's no objections, I'd like to try to open up for voting again to > > officially adopt this as a protocol to add to our docs. > > > > Thanks all! > > > > --Matt > > > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 6:43 PM Paul Whalen <pgwha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Agreed that it makes sense not to focus on in-place updating for this > >> proposal. I’m not even sure it’s a great fit as a “general purpose” > Arrow > >> protocol, because of all the assumptions and restrictions required as > you > >> noted. > >> > >> I took another look at the proposal and don’t think there’s anything > >> preventing in-place updating in the future - ultimately the data body > could > >> just be in the same location for subsequent messages. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> Paul > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 5:28 PM Matt Topol <zotthewiz...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > > @pgwhalen: As a potential "end user developer," (and aspiring > >> > contributor) this > >> > immediately excited me when I first saw it. > >> > > >> > Yay! Good to hear that! > >> > > >> > > @pgwhalen: 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. > >> > > >> > So, updating batches in place was not a particular use-case we were > >> > targeting with this approach. Instead using shared memory to produce > and > >> > consume the buffers/batches without having to physically copy the > data. > >> > Trying to update a batch in place is a dangerous prospect for a > number of > >> > reasons, but as you've mentioned it can technically be made safe if > the > >> > shape is staying the same and you're only modifying fixed-width data > >> types > >> > (i.e. not only is the *shape* unchanged but the sizes of the > underlying > >> > data buffers are also remaining unchanged). The producer/consumer > >> > coordination that would be needed for updating batches in place is not > >> part > >> > of this proposal but is definitely something we can look into as a > >> > follow-up to this for extending it. There's a number of discussions > that > >> > would need to be had around that so I don't want to add on another > >> > complexity to this already complex proposal. > >> > > >> > That said, if you or anyone see something in this proposal that would > >> > hinder or prevent being able to use it for your use case please let me > >> know > >> > so we can address it. Even though the proposal as it currently exists > >> > doesn't fully support the in-place updating of batches, I don't want > to > >> > make things harder for us in such a follow-up where we'd end up > requiring > >> > an entirely new protocol to support that. > >> > > >> > > @octalene.dev: 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. > >> > > >> > Awesome! Thanks much! > >> > > >> > > >> > For reference to anyone who hasn't looked at the document in a while, > >> since > >> > the original discussion thread on this I have added a full "Background > >> > Context" page to the beginning of the proposal to help anyone who > isn't > >> > already familiar with the issues this protocol is trying to solve or > >> isn't > >> > already familiar with ucx or libfabric transports to better understand > >> > *why* I'm > >> > proposing this and what it is trying to solve. The point of this > >> background > >> > information is to help ensure that anyone who might have thoughts on > >> > protocols in general or APIs should still be able to understand the > base > >> > reasons and goals that we're trying to achieve with this protocol > >> proposal. > >> > You don't need to already understand managing GPU/device memory or > ucx to > >> > be able to have meaningful input on the document. > >> > > >> > Thanks again to all who have contributed so far and please spread to > any > >> > contacts that you think might be interested in this for their > particular > >> > use cases. > >> > > >> > --Matt > >> > > >> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 1:39 AM Aldrin <octalene....@pm.me.invalid> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > 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 > >> > > >> >
