Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

TCP configuration for dask example #654

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: branch-0.17
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

quasiben
Copy link
Member

Doc update to address changes to UCX_TCP_{TX,RX}_SEG_SIZE defaults

cc @pentschev @jakirkham


.. note::

If using TCP without NVLink or Infiniband, TCP alone may require additional configuration
Copy link
Member

@pentschev pentschev Oct 22, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's why I think we should try to be less aggressive in trying to solve everyone's problems, "require" is definitely not the right word. It will still work without setting any of that, and we don't know whether limitations may exist when increasing the segment size for TCP depending on hardware, network stability, etc., it has worked for us and improved performance but doesn't mean it will for every case and we don't extensively test for that. Furthermore, there may be a reason for segment sizes to be that small by default, and if I had to guess I would say this has to do with robustness, even for networks that are less stable and more susceptible to packet losses.

With the above said, I don't mind either having this or not, but I think we should balance if we really want to propose solutions we don't really know much about and don't really test for.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What about just saying something like "one may consider"?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's ok too, I'm just saying that by doing this kind of statement we're implicitly saying that we support those configurations somehow, which isn't really the case.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it? When we started using UCX, there were a lot of details that were unknown to us and we spent a lot of time figuring things out and writing them down. As I see it, us writing this down is just for the benefit of others so they need not complete the same exercise. IOW we are just giving users guidance and it is up to them to do what they will with it 🙂

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would agree with that if we really knew what are the potential side-effects of those configurations. But IMO, we know of one and only one case for which it had better performance and I'm not confident in giving advice based on a single observation. With that said, I would personally prefer that users refer to official UCX docs for those, after all, I never observed UCX being faster than Python Sockets when we don't have NVLink or IB available.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
Status: No status
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants