mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From kellen sunderland <kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Publish MXNet images to DockerHub
Date Thu, 26 Jul 2018 14:36:13 GMT
Awesome.  Thanks Meghna.

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 11:08 PM Meghna Baijal <meghnabaijal2017@gmail.com>
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 dockerfiles to use the pip binaries instead of building from
> source.
> Images for all other language bindings were being released only until MXNet
> 0.12.0 since they were not being maintained. I think there are a couple of
> github issues open to track broken dockerfiles.
>
> Kellen,
>
> I can help you publish the docker images to dockerhub.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Meghna Baijal
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 4:45 PM Anirudh Acharya <anirudhkrec@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > 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