I'll keep this new vote open for at least the next 72 hours. As before please reply with:
[ ] +1 Accept this Proposal [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Do not accept this proposal because... Thanks everyone! On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 7:51 PM Benjamin Kietzman <bengil...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, 18:36 Matt Topol <zotthewiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Should I start a new thread for a new vote? Or repeat the original vote > > email here? > > > > Just asking since there hasn't been any responses so far. > > > > --Matt > > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:46 AM Matt Topol <zotthewiz...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Absolutely, it will be marked experimental until we see some people > using > > > it and can get more real-world feedback. > > > > > > There's also already a couple things that will be followed-up on after > > the > > > initial adoption for expansion which were discussed in the comments. > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 11:42 AM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > >> I think let's try again. Would it be reasonable to declare this > > >> 'experimental' for the time being, just as we did with Flight/Flight > > >> SQL/etc? > > >> > > >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024, at 15:24, Matt Topol wrote: > > >> > Hey All, It's been another month and we've gotten a whole bunch of > > >> feedback > > >> > and engagement on the document from a variety of individuals. Myself > > >> and a > > >> > few others have proactively attempted to reach out to as many third > > >> parties > > >> > as we could, hoping to pull more engagement also. While it would be > > >> great > > >> > to get even more feedback, the comments have slowed down and we > > haven't > > >> > gotten anything in a few days at this point. > > >> > > > >> > If there's no objections, I'd like to try to open up for voting > again > > to > > >> > officially adopt this as a protocol to add to our docs. > > >> > > > >> > Thanks all! > > >> > > > >> > --Matt > > >> > > > >> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 6:43 PM Paul Whalen <pgwha...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Agreed that it makes sense not to focus on in-place updating for > this > > >> >> proposal. I’m not even sure it’s a great fit as a “general > purpose” > > >> Arrow > > >> >> protocol, because of all the assumptions and restrictions required > as > > >> you > > >> >> noted. > > >> >> > > >> >> I took another look at the proposal and don’t think there’s > anything > > >> >> preventing in-place updating in the future - ultimately the data > body > > >> could > > >> >> just be in the same location for subsequent messages. > > >> >> > > >> >> Thanks! > > >> >> Paul > > >> >> > > >> >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 5:28 PM Matt Topol <zotthewiz...@gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > > @pgwhalen: As a potential "end user developer," (and aspiring > > >> >> > contributor) this > > >> >> > immediately excited me when I first saw it. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Yay! Good to hear that! > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > @pgwhalen: And it wasn't clear to me whether updating batches > in > > >> >> > place (and the producer/consumer coordination that comes with > that) > > >> was > > >> >> > supported or encouraged as part of the proposal. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > So, updating batches in place was not a particular use-case we > were > > >> >> > targeting with this approach. Instead using shared memory to > > produce > > >> and > > >> >> > consume the buffers/batches without having to physically copy the > > >> data. > > >> >> > Trying to update a batch in place is a dangerous prospect for a > > >> number of > > >> >> > reasons, but as you've mentioned it can technically be made safe > if > > >> the > > >> >> > shape is staying the same and you're only modifying fixed-width > > data > > >> >> types > > >> >> > (i.e. not only is the *shape* unchanged but the sizes of the > > >> underlying > > >> >> > data buffers are also remaining unchanged). The producer/consumer > > >> >> > coordination that would be needed for updating batches in place > is > > >> not > > >> >> part > > >> >> > of this proposal but is definitely something we can look into as > a > > >> >> > follow-up to this for extending it. There's a number of > discussions > > >> that > > >> >> > would need to be had around that so I don't want to add on > another > > >> >> > complexity to this already complex proposal. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > That said, if you or anyone see something in this proposal that > > would > > >> >> > hinder or prevent being able to use it for your use case please > let > > >> me > > >> >> know > > >> >> > so we can address it. Even though the proposal as it currently > > exists > > >> >> > doesn't fully support the in-place updating of batches, I don't > > want > > >> to > > >> >> > make things harder for us in such a follow-up where we'd end up > > >> requiring > > >> >> > an entirely new protocol to support that. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > @octalene.dev: I know of a third party that is interested in > > >> Arrow for > > >> >> > HPC environments that could be interested in the proposal and I > can > > >> see > > >> >> if > > >> >> > they're interested in providing feedback. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Awesome! Thanks much! > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > For reference to anyone who hasn't looked at the document in a > > while, > > >> >> since > > >> >> > the original discussion thread on this I have added a full > > >> "Background > > >> >> > Context" page to the beginning of the proposal to help anyone who > > >> isn't > > >> >> > already familiar with the issues this protocol is trying to solve > > or > > >> >> isn't > > >> >> > already familiar with ucx or libfabric transports to better > > >> understand > > >> >> > *why* I'm > > >> >> > proposing this and what it is trying to solve. The point of this > > >> >> background > > >> >> > information is to help ensure that anyone who might have thoughts > > on > > >> >> > protocols in general or APIs should still be able to understand > the > > >> base > > >> >> > reasons and goals that we're trying to achieve with this protocol > > >> >> proposal. > > >> >> > You don't need to already understand managing GPU/device memory > or > > >> ucx to > > >> >> > be able to have meaningful input on the document. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Thanks again to all who have contributed so far and please spread > > to > > >> any > > >> >> > contacts that you think might be interested in this for their > > >> particular > > >> >> > use cases. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > --Matt > > >> >> > > > >> >> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 1:39 AM Aldrin > <octalene....@pm.me.invalid > > > > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > I am interested in this as well, but I haven't gotten to a > point > > >> where > > >> >> I > > >> >> > > can have valuable input (I haven't tried other transports). I > > know > > >> of a > > >> >> > > third party that is interested in Arrow for HPC environments > that > > >> could > > >> >> > be > > >> >> > > interested in the proposal and I can see if they're interested > in > > >> >> > providing > > >> >> > > feedback. > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > I glanced at the document before but I'll go through again to > see > > >> if > > >> >> > there > > >> >> > > is anything I can comment on. > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > # ------------------------------ > > >> >> > > # Aldrin > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > https://github.com/drin/ > > >> >> > > https://gitlab.com/octalene > > >> >> > > https://keybase.io/octalene > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > On Tuesday, February 27th, 2024 at 17:43, Paul Whalen < > > >> >> > pgwha...@gmail.com> > > >> >> > > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > As a potential "end user developer," (and aspiring > contributor) > > >> this > > >> >> > > > immediately excited me when I first saw it. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > I work at a trading firm, and my team has developed an IPC > > >> mechanism > > >> >> > for > > >> >> > > > efficiently transmitting pandas dataframes both remotely via > > TCP > > >> and > > >> >> > > > locally via shared memory, where the interface for the > > >> application > > >> >> > > > developer is the same for both. The data in the dataframes > may > > >> change > > >> >> > > > rapidly, so when communicating locally via shared memory, if > > the > > >> >> shape > > >> >> > of > > >> >> > > > the dataframe doesn't change, we update the memory in place, > > >> >> > coordinating > > >> >> > > > between the producer and consumer via TCP. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > We intend to move away from our remote TCP mechanism towards > > >> Arrow > > >> >> > > Flight, > > >> >> > > > or a lighter-weight version of Arrow IPC. For the local > shared > > >> memory > > >> >> > > > mechanism which we previously did not have a good answer for, > > it > > >> >> seems > > >> >> > > like > > >> >> > > > Disassociated Arrow IPC maps quite well to our problem. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > So some features that enable our use case are: > > >> >> > > > - Updating existing batches in place is supported > > >> >> > > > - The interface is pretty similar to Flight > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > I'd imagine we're not the only financial firm to implement > > >> something > > >> >> > like > > >> >> > > > this, given how widespread pandas usage is, so that could be > a > > >> place > > >> >> to > > >> >> > > > seek feedback. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > As I was reading the proposal initially, I gleaned that the > > most > > >> >> > > important > > >> >> > > > audience was those writing interfaces to GPUs/remote > > >> >> > memory/non-standard > > >> >> > > > transports/etc. And it wasn't clear to me whether updating > > >> batches in > > >> >> > > > place (and the producer/consumer coordination that comes with > > >> that) > > >> >> was > > >> >> > > > supported or encouraged as part of the proposal. But > > regardless, > > >> as > > >> >> an > > >> >> > > end > > >> >> > > > user, this seems like an easier and more efficient way to > glue > > >> pieces > > >> >> > in > > >> >> > > > the Arrow ecosystem together if it was adopted broadly. > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Paul > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 6:05 PM Matt Topol > > >> zotthewiz...@gmail.com > > >> >> > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > I'll continue my efforts of trying to reach out to other > > >> interested > > >> >> > > > > parties, but if anyone else here has any contacts or > > >> connections > > >> >> that > > >> >> > > they > > >> >> > > > > think might be interested please forward them the link to > the > > >> >> Google > > >> >> > > doc. > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > I really do want to get as much engagement and feedback as > > >> possible > > >> >> > on > > >> >> > > > > this. > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Thanks! > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024, 6:38 PM Wes McKinney > > wesmck...@gmail.com > > >> >> > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Have there been efforts to proactively reach out to other > > >> third > > >> >> > > parties > > >> >> > > > > > that might have an interest in this or be a potential > user > > at > > >> >> some > > >> >> > > point? > > >> >> > > > > > There are a lot of interested parties in Arrow that may > not > > >> >> > actively > > >> >> > > > > > follow > > >> >> > > > > > the mailing list. > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > Seems like folks from the Dask, Ray, RAPIDS (especially > > >> folks at > > >> >> > > NVIDIA > > >> >> > > > > > or > > >> >> > > > > > working on UCX), or other communities like that might > have > > >> >> > > constructive > > >> >> > > > > > thoughts about this. DLPack ( > > >> >> https://dmlc.github.io/dlpack/latest/ > > >> >> > ) > > >> >> > > also > > >> >> > > > > > seems adjacent and worth reaching out to. Other ideas for > > >> >> projects > > >> >> > or > > >> >> > > > > > companies that could be reached out to for feedback. > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 5:23 PM Antoine Pitrou > > >> >> anto...@python.org > > >> >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > If there's no engagement, then I'm afraid it might mean > > >> that > > >> >> > third > > >> >> > > > > > > parties have no interest in this. I don't really have > any > > >> >> > solution > > >> >> > > for > > >> >> > > > > > > generating engagement except nagging and pinging people > > >> >> > explicitly > > >> >> > > :-) > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > Le 27/02/2024 à 19:09, Matt Topol a écrit : > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I would like to see the same Antoine, currently given > > the > > >> >> lack > > >> >> > of > > >> >> > > > > > > > engagement (both for OR against) I was going to take > > the > > >> >> > silence > > >> >> > > as > > >> >> > > > > > > > assent > > >> >> > > > > > > > and hope for non-Voltron Data PMC members to vote in > > >> this. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > If anyone has any suggestions on how we could > > potentially > > >> >> > > generate > > >> >> > > > > > > > more > > >> >> > > > > > > > engagement and discussion on this, please let me know > > as > > >> I > > >> >> want > > >> >> > > as > > >> >> > > > > > > > many > > >> >> > > > > > > > parties in the community as possible to be part of > > this. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Thanks everyone. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > --Matt > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 12:48 PM Antoine Pitrou > > >> >> > > anto...@python.org > > >> >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hello, > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I'd really like to see more engagement and > criticism > > >> from > > >> >> > > > > > > > > non-Voltron > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data parties before this is formally adopted as an > > >> Arrow > > >> >> > spec. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Regards > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Antoine. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Le 27/02/2024 à 18:35, Matt Topol a écrit : > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Hey all, > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose a vote for us to officially > > >> adopt the > > >> >> > > protocol > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > described in the google doc[1] for Dissociated > > Arrow > > >> IPC > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Transports. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > This > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposal was originally discussed at 2. Once this > > >> >> proposal > > >> >> > is > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > adopted, > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > will work on adding the necessary documentation > to > > >> the > > >> >> > Arrow > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > website > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > along > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > with examples etc. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Accept this Proposal > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [ ] +0 > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [ ] -1 Do not accept this proposal because... > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Thank you everyone! > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > --Matt > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [1]: > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHbnyK1r6KHpMOtEdIg1EZKNzHx-MVgUMOzB87GuXyk/edit#heading=h.38515dnp2bdb > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > > >
