mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Singh, Rajan" <>
Subject Re: MXNet Protobuf dependency
Date Wed, 23 May 2018 20:38:09 GMT
Awesome !!!! 

Thanks Rahul for the info. Will align


On 5/23/18, 12:04 PM, "Rahul Huilgol" <> wrote:

    Hi Rajan,
    This PR from the Intel folks is adding support for MPI based distributed
    training. They also needed proto3 and have updated the current ps-lite
    proto file to work with protobuf3.5. You might want to take a look at that
    and align efforts with that approach.
    The ps-lite change:
    On Wed, 23 May 2018 at 11:06 Singh, Rajan <> wrote:
    > Hi,
    > Currently, MXNet has Protobuf ( version 2.5) as one of its dependency. The
    > dependency comes from PS-lite<
    > used for distributed training.
    > Recently, we have added ONNX support in MXNet(1.2.0) contrib package(
    > import ONNX support). This module has a runtime dependency on
    > Protobuf(version 3) , needed for ONNX.
    > So, if a user tries to do “import onnx”, will get a message:
    > “To use this module developers need to install ONNX, which requires the
    > protobuf compiler to be installed separately. Please follow the
    > instructions to install ONNX and its dependencies<
    >>. MXNet currently supports ONNX
    > v1.1.1. Once installed, you can go through the tutorials on how to use this
    > module.”
    > User will end up installing protobuf version 3.5.2. Since Protobuf
    > backward compatibility is flaky, anything dependent on version < 2.6, will
    > probably break. In this case, distributed training might break for the user.
    > IMO, To resolve this dependency conflict in MXNet, would require an update
    > to PS-lite dependency to  Protobuf version 3. Is there a POA to update this
    > dependency for PS-lite?
    > FYI: We are also working on adding an export module support, will export
    > MXNet models to ONNX format, which will also have Protobuf version 3 and
    > ONNX as its runtime dependency.
    > Please let me know, what should be best path moving forward.
    > Thanks
    > Rajan

View raw message