-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27k
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
🚨 Fully revert atomic checkpointing 🚨 #29370
Conversation
The docs for this PR live here. All of your documentation changes will be reflected on that endpoint. The docs are available until 30 days after the last update. |
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.
Thank you. That's a good learning experience for me, saving files is tricky and a lot of users have a lot of different hardwares!
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 for fixing! Agreed removing this feature is a good idea.
Let's add a 🚨 prefix to the PR title so we know this is a "breaking" change - i.e. behaviour is changing between releases
Fully revert atomic checkpointing
wonderful PR! hope 4.38.3 version release soon |
Will this change be included in 4.38.3? Thanks |
@Chandler-Bing @shiningliang 4.38.2 -> 4.38.3 would represent a patch release, these are reserved for fixing regressions or unintended breaking changes from a minor release i.e. 4.37 -> 4.38. We have minor releases roughly once a month, so the next release, 4.39.0 will be in a week or two. |
Nice PR! Upgraded transformers to the latest version (i.e., main), now the checkpoints can be saved smoothly in mult-node setting. |
Fully revert atomic checkpointing
What does this PR do?
As discussed offline, while on paper having atomic checkpointing was a good idea, it's unmaintainable by the core maintainers and has resulted in an influx of issues from users considering the wide variety of storage options available to them. (and untestable)
As the feature request, while reasonable and from a good mindset, was not due to an outright bug, we are reverting it entirely.
Related PRs:
#27820, #28364
Did revert based on this commit: fe8d130
Related issues:
Before submitting
Pull Request section?
to it if that's the case.
documentation guidelines, and
here are tips on formatting docstrings.
Who can review?
Anyone in the community is free to review the PR once the tests have passed. Feel free to tag
members/contributors who may be interested in your PR.
@ArthurZucker @LysandreJik