Re: Publish MXNet images to DockerHub

[kellen sunderland <ke...@gmail.com>]

Hey folks, I've got a TensorRT Dockerfile here:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/KellenSunderland/incubator-mxnet/tensorrt_runtime_docker/docker/Dockerfile.tensorrt

I'm wondering what the next step would be in merging it.  Do all agree that
it would make sense to get rid of the current docker folder?  Would merging
a basic replacement folder like this make sense as a placeholder?
https://github.com/KellenSunderland/incubator-mxnet/tree/tensorrt_runtime_docker/docker

-Kellen


On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 4:36 PM kellen sunderland <
kellen.sunderland@gmail.com> wrote:

> Awesome.  Thanks Meghna.
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 11:08 PM Meghna Baijal <me...@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 <an...@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 <mn...@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 <mu...@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
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>