A PyTorch Approach to ML Infrastructure
1–10 of 24 posts
Re: A PyTorch Approach to ML Infrastructure
#2Re: A PyTorch Approach to ML Infrastructure
#3Re: A PyTorch Approach to ML Infrastructure
#4How would you position this vs the Modular/Mojo approach which aims to relieve similar pain points.
Re: A PyTorch Approach to ML Infrastructure
#5Re: A PyTorch Approach to ML Infrastructure
#6I see from looking at the source here, run.house is using the same approach of cloudpickling the function. That works, but one struggle we are having is it's quite brittle. It's all gravy assuming everyone is operating in perfectly fresh environments that mirror the cluster, but this is rarely the case. Even subtle changes in the execution environment locally can produce segfaults when run on the server. Very hard to debug. The code here looks a lot more mature, so I'm assuming this is more robust than what we have. But would be curious if the developers have run into similar challenges.
Re: A PyTorch Approach to ML Infrastructure
#7How would you position this vs the Modular/Mojo approach which aims to relieve similar pain points.
Re: A PyTorch Approach to ML Infrastructure
#8Re: A PyTorch Approach to ML Infrastructure
#9Very interesting. I just worked to implement a baby version of this kind of system at work. Similar to this project, our basic use case was allowing researchers to quickly/easily execute their arbitrary R&D code on cloud resources. It's difficult to know in advance what they might be doing, and we wanted to avoid a situation where they are pushing a docker container or submitting a file every time they change somethi…
In fact we totally agree and are not cloudpickling the function because of the package minor version issues. We sync over the code to the destination environment and the server imports it fresh, which is much more robust. The one piece of code that cloudpickles functions is a trap door for certain weird situations, but frankly we haven't had to use it in months.
Re: A PyTorch Approach to ML Infrastructure
#10How would you position this vs the Modular/Mojo approach which aims to relieve similar pain points.
In general making code itself more portable is great (which is the objective of many ML compilers) and will make Runhouse even more valuable, because the ability to take the same code and send it to different places shines when those different places can be different compute types.