mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anirudh Acharya <anirudhk...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Publish MXNet images to DockerHub
Date Tue, 24 Jul 2018 23:45:10 GMT
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&language=Python&processor=CPU
Similar instructions need to be there for other bindings too.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:04 PM kellen sunderland <
kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 <anirudhkrec@gmail.com>
> 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 <
> > kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> 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 <mnnaveen@gmail.com>
> 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 <
> > anirudhkrec@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > 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 <muli.cmu@gmail.com>
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 <
> > > > anirudhkrec@gmail.com>
> > > > > > 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 <muli.cmu@gmail.com>
> > 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 <
> > > > > > anirudhkrec@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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