Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
@fhieber we are planning to release the first public beta on this somewhere in August. At the moment we are finalizing some API changes and also validating them in GluonNLP. We will publish a transition doc as part of the public beta. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-662620865
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
@szha is there a recent estimate on the timeline for MXNet 2.0? Would you recommend to develop downstream toolkits (e.g. Sockeye) against the master branch now or rather wait a little bit longer? Is there already documentation on how to transition MXNet 1.x projects to 2.x? -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-662345601
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
A quick comment: DGL contains all sampling implementation and no longer relies on the implementation in MXNet. I think we should deprecate the graph sampling implementation in MXNet. -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-613160299
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
> @lilongyue the integration of bytePS to mxnet is in this PR #17555 that's great ! -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-605647115
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
@lilongyue the integration of bytePS to mxnet is in this PR https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/17555 -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-605494475
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
@szha i checked some docs and projects about distributed training , 'Horovod' is project from uber team , 'Gloo' is project from facebook team. The basic idea is to use trick from HPC computing field which is more efficient then traditional param-server: http://andrew.gibiansky.com/blog/machine-learning/baidu-allreduce/?from=timeline There is a tool called openmpi on which the 'Horvod' project is based ,but i found openmpi is too difficult to configure and use . I also check the 'Gloo' which seems to use 'redis' to replace 'openmpi' . I strongly suggest not to use Horovod directly which is based on openmpi that is too complex and old. maybe we could figure some way to directly do distributed training over redis ? -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-605396959
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
We use the c++ interface for inference on a sorting machine. But also we would like to provide the users of our machines an easy and integrated user interface for training new sorting recipes. Now we use python or Mathematica scripts which is far of user friendly for non-programmers. So we want to use the c++ (shielded with a C# wrapper) to provide a custom training environment for non-programmers. Unfortunately, building the mxnet library with c++ support on Windows machine with MKL / CUDA is an ongoing nightmare. But we really like MxNet -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-593859752
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
> @kalcohol please create a new issue about "static linking lib is (very) far > away from easy to use", describing your setup in more detail and potentially > suggestions how to improve the user experience. #17692 add this tiny requist. -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-591280230
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
@kalcohol please create a new issue about "static linking lib is (very) far away from easy to use", describing your setup in more detail and potentially suggestions how to improve the user experience. -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-590983917
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
Thanks for this awesome work, it has benefited me a great deal. Here are some disadvantages(may be) listed blow: 1. it seems that c and c++ interface both could work, but can not finish single task only by one; 2. low bit training or inference is not available via c/c++(ver. 1.6.0 fix fp16 training); 3. static linking lib is (very) far away from easy to use, cmake configure file(like MxNetConfig.cmake, etc.) will enough for end users to integrate libmxnet.a and other large bunch of static third party libs(it's not easy to maintain gentlemanly demeanor all a day when manually linking these day by day). people could easy to hack loading interface of dynamic library. 4. smaller size of lib will more friendly to edge device. 5. more c++ training demo, including how to use kvstore(multiple cards and multiple servers), it's really not easy to understand. Good day everyone. -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-590833480
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
Is there a plan to remove the cudnn_off argument from the neural network operators such as Dropout, Convolution, Pool etc. It creates a few usability issues: (1) Once a model is exported. It requires users to change this flag in all the layers manually if they want to enable/disable cuDNN. When the cudnn_off is set to true in some layers, the global env variable `MXNET_CUDNN_AUTOTUNE_DEFAULT` becomes don't care. It's very confusing to users to see an error message like "Please turn off MXNET_CUDNN_AUTOTUNE_DEFAULT" by indeed it does not do anything. (2) Why did we expose such implementation detail to users at the first place? In the worst case, we should just provide a global variable to turn on/off cuDNN in all layers instead of at operator level. -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-588530481
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
@TaoLv one promising direction that the community is converging to is the interface based on packed function (motivation as described by @tqchen in https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/17097#issuecomment-56760). What this means to the project is that the existing c API will be updated to follow the packed function interface. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-569857628
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
> 3.1. C-API Clean-up C-API is the foundational API in MXNet that all language bindings depend on. @szha I'm looking at the item 3.1.2. Could you please explain the scope of C-API? Do you mean those APIs sit in the src/c_api/ folder? -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-569850102
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
+1 for using master branch for 2.0 development. I think we need 3 branches at least: 1. master branch: for 2.0 development 2. v1.x: for 1.x development and maintenance 3. v1.7.x: for 1.7.x release -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-569271730
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
In the past we always kept development on the master branch, thus how about branching out 1.7.0 release branch and keeping development on master? -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-569262075
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
Should we create a new branch for 2.0? I think we are also planing for 1.7.0 https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16864 -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-569139977
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
Once 1.6 release is complete, we will create a branch for MXNet 1.x for future releases and start using master branch for 2.0 development. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-565851523
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
The status of MXNet 2.0 project is tracked at: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/projects/18. The status for each project will be updated by the contributor who's driving it. If you have more projects that you intend to drive please first discuss here. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-565851392
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
That's a bit what amalgamation part was for ? a simplified inference interface. The last time I use amalgamation (some years ago) it was often break by update and not really maintain. -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-564472236
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
> > > @stereomatchingkiss good point. What are you using c/c++ api for? 1. Develop stand alone app on desktop and mobile 2. Wrapper of another language(ex : php) 3. Run the inference task on aws lambda, we do not want to prune the libs of python manually if we could build a slim library of mxnet/tensorflow/pytorch. Maybe you could open a post to ask the users what are they expect for c or c++ api, I guess most of them only need to use the api to perform inference task but not training(python do a great job about this), this should help you shrink the size of the libs and made the codes less complicated. -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-563885746
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
@stereomatchingkiss good point. What are you using c/c++ api for? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-563883331
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
Any plan to simplify the build of c and c++ api for mxnet2.0?It is hard(or very hard) to build a working version of mxnet with cpp api on different platforms(windows, linux, mac), every new release of the mxnet may or may not break somethings and we need to spend many hours to figure out how to make it work. -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-563882947
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
Just a quick cheer up for a new website of MXNet... its way more awesome and beautiful than I expected. Though minor bugs are still there, for ex- most of the link in the tutorials are broken and not working. Anyways great work so far. -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-535137308
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
@pengzhao-intel a tentative target date is by end of Q1 2020. @zachgk we will create a branch for 2.0. Initially we will keep master to be 1.x and have 2.0 in a new branch. After 1.6 release we will revisit how to make the 2.0 branch the master. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-532066487
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
Is there a plan to create a branch either for the 1.x version and have master reflect 2.0 or to create a branch for the 2.0 version and keep master on 1.x for now? -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-531989453
Re: [apache/incubator-mxnet] [RFC] Apache MXNet 2.0 Roadmap (#16167)
@szha Really great proposal and we may want to add some items in 2.0 too. Is there a timeline of 2.0? -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/16167#issuecomment-531542441
