top | item 45680237

PyTorch Monarch

377 points| jarbus | 4 months ago |pytorch.org

42 comments

order

pjmlp|4 months ago

Apparently PyTorch oxidation has started.

> Monarch is split into a Python-based frontend, and a backend implemented in Rust.

Other than that, looks like a quite interesting project.

dhrt12327|4 months ago

Multiple sources say that it is an experimental framework around PyTorch, not a replacement. People will still get to enjoy a circular graph using std::shared_ptr with memory leaks.

It's a pity they don't do a complete rewrite with a functional language as the driver.

galangalalgol|4 months ago

This is a new project right? Not the oxidation of an existing one.

alyxya|4 months ago

I made my own single controller PyTorch extension [1], though mines doesn't yet support cross node communication. I found it interesting to compare how Monarch makes things performant. I believe Monarch also uses cloudpickle for code to be shared among all nodes, which is probably the only way to performantly have various nodes execute work as that ends up being a one time setup cost. I found the fanning out of sending messages from the single controller to be really interesting, so the controller is unlikely to be the bottleneck besides any synchronous operations.

As far as things that might be a performance loss here, one thing I'm wondering is if custom kernels are supported. I'm also wondering how much granularity of control there is with communication between different actors calling a function. Overall, I really like this project and hope to see it used over multi-controller setups.

[1] https://github.com/alyxya/mycelya-torch

gaogao|4 months ago

> As far as things that might be a performance loss here, one thing I'm wondering is if custom kernels are supported

Yeah, you might end up needing some changes to remote worker initialization, but you can generally bake in whatever kernels and other system code you need.

porridgeraisin|4 months ago

> This lets us avoid single-host bottlenecks, effectively using the whole mesh as a distributed cluster for message forwarding. (Cite scalability numbers here.)

In case someone that can fix this is reading here

valzam|4 months ago

I assume this is similar to Ray?

cwp|4 months ago

The code example is very similar to Ray.

Monarch:

  class Example(Actor):
     @endpoint
     def say_hello(self, txt):
         return f"hello {txt}"

  procs = this_host().spawn_procs({"gpus": 8})
  actors = procs.spawn("actors", Example)
  hello_future = actors.say_hello.call("world")
  hello_future.get()
Ray:

  @ray.remote(num_gpus=1)
  class Example:
      def say_hello(self, txt):
          return f"hello {txt}"

  actors = [Example.remote() for _ in range(8)]
  hello_object_refs = [a.say_hello.remote("world") for a in actors]
  ray.get(hello_object_refs)

lairv|4 months ago

I'm also curious what's the use case of this over Ray. Tighter integration with PyTorch/tensors abstractions?

unnah|4 months ago

There's also Dask, which can do distributed pandas and numpy operations etc. However it was originally developed for traditional HPC systems and has only limited support for GPU computing. https://www.dask.org/

milancurcic|4 months ago

Cool! Essentially Fortran coarrays from 2008.

philipallstar|4 months ago

Or Hadoop from 2006? But you don't need to write MapReduce or Fortran, so it's probably far nicer.

bjourne|4 months ago

> Monarch lets you program distributed systems the way you’d program a single machine, hiding the complexity of distributed computing:

There are some infamous tech based on the "hiding" paradigm. PHP comes to mind. By hiding how the http request/response cycle actually works it fostered a generation of web developers who didn't know what a session cookie was, resulting in login systems that leaked like a sieve. Distributed computing is complicated. There are many parameters you need to tweak and many design decisions you need to take to make distributed model training run smoothly. I think explicit and transparent architectures are way better. Distributed model training shouldn't "feel" like running on a single device because it isn't.

logicchains|4 months ago

This seems strictly less powerful than Jax, which comes with a powerful compiler that optimises how cross-node communication is conducted.

gaogao|4 months ago

Nah, focusing on a different controller paradigm. Jax is focused on multi-controller SPMD, while this is focused on a single-controller setup. Both have their place, with single-controller being generally easier to reason about, and multi-controller more optimal for certain dataflows. There's also some interesting mixes of the two control paradigms.

fadedsignal|4 months ago

It is a nice project. I have questions.

- Is this similar to openMPI?

- How is a mesh established? Do they need to be on the same host?

semessier|4 months ago

this could become a major thing in coarray world, but the issues start already:

> ...Note that this does not support tensor engine, which is tied to CUDA and RDMA (via ibverbs).

I.e. yet another CUDA married approach: the issue is not ibverbs but the code shows they use GPUDirect RDMA, going from there this can only get worse - more CUDA dependencies. There would have been OpenUCX.

jonapro|4 months ago

Beowulf then.

SomaticPirate|4 months ago

"Our Rust-based backend facilitates our performance, scale, and robustness — we amply use Rust’s fearless concurrency in Monarch’s implementation"

Found a few typo's. The em dash makes me suspect an LLM was involved in proofreading

hellohello2|4 months ago

I would argue that typos suggest an LLM did not proofread.

whimsicalism|4 months ago

that it is surrounded by spaces makes this less likely