+1 On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, 18:36 Matt Topol <zotthewiz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Should I start a new thread for a new vote? Or repeat the original vote > email here? > > Just asking since there hasn't been any responses so far. > > --Matt > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:46 AM Matt Topol <zotthewiz...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 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 > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >
