Hog Wild is intended for multi-core machines.  2 core doesn't much matter
in this consideration.

And GPU's rarely help with these problems because it is so easy to wind up
I/O bound.  SGD learners are fast.

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Lance Norskog <[email protected]> wrote:

> Is "Hog Wild" expected to be faster on 2 processors are on 20? If it
> is intended for many-processor machines, that may be a useful
> addition. These days 8 cores is at the knee of the price-performance
> curve for low-end servers.
>
> Are there gradient descent algorithms suitable for OpenCL GPU coding?
> GPU seems like a hole in the Mahout suite, and would be very sexy to
> summer-of-code projects.
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > I meant specifically the MR stuff which is SSGD seems to be aimed at.
> > On a single CPU restarts or even simple CAS updates are not a problem
> > as in the paper you've mentioned. There's no extra cost associated
> > with them. I think Mahout's single node online SGD is already
> > SMP-parallelized (albeit it does so to figure best fit for reg rate on
> > a validation subset). as far as i remember. That's different from
> > parallelization suggested in wild hog algo, but as long as we believe
> > the work needs to be done and loads all cpus, there's probably not
> > much win to use this or that approach for smp programming which
> > essentially produce same quality result without meaningful improvement
> > margin.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Hector Yee <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >> Have you read the lock free hog wild paper? Just sgd with multiple
> threads
> >> and don't be afraid of memory stomps. It works faster than batch
> >> On Mar 15, 2012 2:32 PM, "Dmitriy Lyubimov" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> We already discussed the paper before. In fact, i had exactly same
> >>> idea for partitioning the factorization task (something the authors
> >>> call "stratified" sgd ) with stochastic learners before i ever saw
> >>> this paper.
> >>>
> >>> I personally lost interest in this approach even before i read the
> >>> paper because the way i understood it at that time, it would have
> >>> required at least as many MR restarts with data exchange as there's a
> >>> degree of parallelism and consequently just as many data passes. In
> >>> framework of Mahout it is also difficult because Mahout doesn't
> >>> support blocking out of the box for its DRM format so an additional
> >>> job may be required to pre-block the data the way they want to process
> >>> it --or-- we have to run over 100% of it during each restart, instead
> >>> of a fraction if it.
> >>>
> >>> All in all, my speculation was there were little chances that this
> >>> approach would provide a win over ALS techniques with restarts that we
> >>> currently already have with a mid to high degree of parallelization
> >>> (say 50 way parallelization and on).
> >>>
> >>> But honestly i would be happy to be wrong because I did not understand
> >>> some of the work or did not see some of the optimizations suggested. I
> >>> would be especially happy if it could beat our current ALS WR with a
> >>> meaningful margin on bigger data.
> >>>
> >>> -d
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Zeno Gantner <[email protected]>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > Hi list,
> >>> >
> >>> > I was talking to Isabel Drost in December, and we talked about a nice
> >>> > paper from last year's KDD conference that suggests a neat trick that
> >>> > allows doing SGD for matrix factorization in parallel.
> >>> >
> >>> > She said this would be interesting for some of you here.
> >>> >
> >>> > Here is the paper:
> >>> > http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/~rgemulla/publications/gemulla11dsgd.pdf
> >>> >
> >>> > Note that the authors themselves implemented it already in Hadoop.
> >>> >
> >>> > Maybe someone would like to pick this up.
> >>> >
> >>> > I am still trying to find my way around the Mahout/Taste source code,
> >>> > so do not expect anything from me too soon ;-)
> >>> >
> >>> > Best regards,
> >>> >  Zeno
> >>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lance Norskog
> [email protected]
>

Reply via email to