I was actually interested in pushing a version of MXNet with TensorRT enabled some time in the next few weeks just so that people can experiment with the feature without worrying about installing the right protoc and onnx versions. If people here think it's a good idea I can open a PR with a runtime-docker folder with the intent that this work could be a template for others who want to contribute runtime Dockerfiles? If a few contributors do put together an Dockerfile with TensorRT enabled, would it be possible to get that image pushed to the MXNet Dockerhub repo by a committer?
On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 3:57 PM Anirudh Acharya <[email protected]> wrote: > @Naveen No, I meant in general, for all bindings. Irrespective of whether > we use a package management repository, being able to pull an image from > docker hub would be convenient for anyone wanting to get started on MXNet > or run services( as Kellen said). > > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:20 AM kellen sunderland < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I think it's a good idea Anirudh. It should help users easily get MXNet > up > > and running whether they're running services, following tutorials, etc. > > > > On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 8:10 AM Naveen Swamy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I don't think we need for JVM languages, they have a good dependency > > > management through Maven Central. We weren't publishing regularly to > > Maven, > > > now we do. > > > > > > Anirudh, I am guessing you are interested docker for R language, If > the R > > > packages were published to CRAN do you still see a need for docker ? > > Could > > > you elaborate how this would be helpful and easy if they were to use > > other > > > packages in CRAN? > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 10:51 PM, Anirudh Acharya < > [email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, correct cu90 is indeed there, thanks for pointing it. > > > > > > > > So the question, should we be publishing to Docker Hub as part of the > > > > release process so that bindings other than python are also published > > and > > > > there is a policy on what cuda versions we publish? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > ANirudh > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 9:56 PM Mu Li <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > cu90 and cu90mkl are also available, see > > > > > https://hub.docker.com/r/mxnet/python/tags/ > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Anirudh Acharya < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The python binding that is actively maintained is > > > > > > > > > > > > mxnet-mkl 1.2.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Other versions that use CUDA like mxnet-cu<xx> and > mxnet-cu<xx>mkl > > > are > > > > > not > > > > > > actively maintained. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > Anirudh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 9:09 PM Mu Li <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Surprisingly only the python binding is actively maintained. I > > > > remember > > > > > > we > > > > > > > can easily push all bindings into docker hub through the script > > in > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/master/docker. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 5:03 PM, Anirudh Acharya < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Docker Hub( https://hub.docker.com/u/mxnet/ ) currently > hosts > > > > images > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > MXNet and its various bindings but it is not actively > > maintained. > > > > > > Should > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > publish MXNet images to Docker Hub as part of the release > > process > > > > and > > > > > > > > actively maintain it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The pros of publishing docker images would be ease of use and > > > > access > > > > > to > > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > users. Is this something that should be included as part of > the > > > > > release > > > > > > > > process? What does the community think? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Anirudh Acharya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
