You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@mxnet.apache.org by Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com> on 2018/07/22 00:03:21 UTC
Publish MXNet images to DockerHub
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
Re: Publish MXNet images to DockerHub
Posted by 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
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
Re: Publish MXNet images to DockerHub
Posted by kellen sunderland <ke...@gmail.com>.
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 <mu...@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
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Publish MXNet images to DockerHub
Posted by Meghna Baijal <me...@gmail.com>.
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 <an...@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 <mu...@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
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Publish MXNet images to DockerHub
Posted by Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com>.
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 <an...@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 <mu...@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
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Publish MXNet images to DockerHub
Posted by kellen sunderland <ke...@gmail.com>.
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 <an...@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 <mu...@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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Publish MXNet images to DockerHub
Posted by Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com>.
@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 <mu...@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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Publish MXNet images to DockerHub
Posted by kellen sunderland <ke...@gmail.com>.
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 <an...@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 <mu...@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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Publish MXNet images to DockerHub
Posted by Naveen Swamy <mn...@gmail.com>.
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 <an...@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 <an...@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 <mu...@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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Publish MXNet images to DockerHub
Posted by Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com>.
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 <an...@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 <mu...@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
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Publish MXNet images to DockerHub
Posted by Mu Li <mu...@gmail.com>.
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 <an...@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 <mu...@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 <an...@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
> > >
> >
>
Re: Publish MXNet images to DockerHub
Posted by Anirudh Acharya <an...@gmail.com>.
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 <mu...@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 <an...@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
> >
>
Re: Publish MXNet images to DockerHub
Posted by Mu Li <mu...@gmail.com>.
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 <an...@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
>