mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bhavin Thaker <>
Subject Re: CUDA Support [DISCUSS]
Date Sat, 06 Jan 2018 16:05:51 GMT
Hi Kellen,

1) Does Apache MXNet (Incubating) have a support matrix? I think the answer
is no, because I don’t know of where it is documented. One of the mentors
told me earlier that the community uses and modifies the open-source
project as per their individual  requirements or those of the community. As
far as I know, there is no single entity that is responsible for supporting
something in MXNet — corrections to my understanding are welcome.

2) I think your question probably is what should be tested by the Apache
MXNet CI and NOT what is supported by Apache MXNet, correct?

If yes, I propose testing only the latest CUDA9 and the respective latest
cuDNN version in the MXNet CI since CUDA9 is backward compatible with
earlier Nvidia hardware generations.

I would like to hear reasons why this would not work.

I have commented on the github issue as well:

Bhavin Thaker.

On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 3:30 AM kellen sunderland <> wrote:

> Hello all, I'd like to propose that we nail down exactly which versions of
> CUDA we're supporting.  We can then ensure that we've got good test
> coverage for those specific versions in CI.  At the moment it's ambiguous
> what our current policy is.  I.e. when do we drop support for old
> versions?  As a result we potentially cut a release promising to support a
> certain version of CUDA, then retroactively drop support after we find an
> issue.
> I'd like to propose that we officially support N, and N-1 versions of CUDA,
> where N is the most recent major version release.  In addition we can do
> our best to support libraries that are available for download for those
> versions.  Supporting these CUDA versions would also dictate which hardware
> we support in terms of compute capability (of course resource constraints
> would also play some role in our ability to support some hardware).
> As an example this would mean that currently we'd officially support CUDA
> 9.* and 8.  This would imply we support CUDNN 5.1 through 7, as those
> libraries are available for CUDA 8, and 9.  It would also mean we support
> 3.0-7.x (Kepler, Maxwell, Pascal, Volta) taking the more restrictive
> hardware requirements of CUDA 9 into account.
> What do you all think?  Would this be a reasonable support strategy?  Are
> these the versions you'd like to see covered in CI?
> -Kellen
> A relevant issue:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message