-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 8.7k
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
[jvm-packages] do not use multiple jobs to make checkpoints (#5082)
* temp * temp * tep * address the comments * fix stylistic issues * fix * external checkpoint
- Loading branch information
Showing
14 changed files
with
463 additions
and
319 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
164 changes: 0 additions & 164 deletions
164
...ages/xgboost4j-spark/src/main/scala/ml/dmlc/xgboost4j/scala/spark/CheckpointManager.scala
This file was deleted.
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
d7b45fb
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@RAMitchell @trivialfis @hcho3 could this be in 1.0?
d7b45fb
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@CodingCat I’m not an expert in JVM packages, so I’ll have to defer to you on that. One suggestion is to ask whether the benefit outweighs risks (e.g. risk of breaking things or worsening performance).
d7b45fb
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I tested this feature which is originally in 1.0 roadmap (sorry, I am too busy to upstream these things in a timely manner), everything looks fine
since 1.0 branch has been cut, I would get an agreement on backporting
d7b45fb
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also another option is to wait for 6 weeks to do 1.1 release. There are a few interesting PRs that are being left out of 1.0, and they would make a nice minor release.
d7b45fb
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Okay, if it’s tested in your system, it should be okay to cherrypick this commit to 1.0 branch. Just give me your word and I’ll do it.
d7b45fb
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Did not see this sentence. Let’s wait to hear back from at least one another committer.
@trams I’d like to hear from you whether this commit should be included in 1.0 release.
d7b45fb
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm fine to add it if you are comfortable, scope is limited to JVM package.
d7b45fb
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thanks, folks, I pushed to 1.0.0 branch
d7b45fb
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It would be nice to include it