Hey folks, I've got a TensorRT Dockerfile here:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/KellenSunderland/incubator-mxnet/tensorrt_runtime_docker/docker/Dockerfile.tensorrt
I'm wondering what the next step would be in merging it. Do all agree that
it would make sense to get rid of the current docker
Awesome. Thanks Meghna.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 11:08 PM Meghna Baijal
wrote:
> Hi Anirudh,
> Thanks for bringing this up.
> The Python Images are being actively released for each MXNet version. Until
> last release I was using the script Mu has pointed out but from 1.2.1 I
> replaced these
Hi Anirudh,
Thanks for bringing this up.
The Python Images are being actively released for each MXNet version. Until
last release I was using the script Mu has pointed out but from 1.2.1 I
replaced these dockerfiles to use the pip binaries instead of building from
source.
Images for all other
Yes that would be good. Also I just noticed that in the Installation
instructions page only python has docker image installation instruction
here -
http://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/install/index.html?platform=Linux=Python=CPU
Similar instructions need to be there for other bindings too.
On Tue,
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
@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
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 wrote:
> I don't think we need for JVM languages, they have a good dependency
> management through
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
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
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
wrote:
> The python binding that is actively maintained is
>
> mxnet-mkl 1.2.1
>
>
> Other versions that use CUDA like mxnet-cu and mxnet-cumkl are not
>
The python binding that is actively maintained is
mxnet-mkl 1.2.1
Other versions that use CUDA like mxnet-cu and mxnet-cumkl are not
actively maintained.
-
Anirudh
On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 9:09 PM Mu Li wrote:
> Surprisingly only the python binding is actively maintained. I remember
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
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Docker Hub(
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
