Skip to content

Conversation

@D0miH
Copy link

@D0miH D0miH commented Jan 11, 2023

Sometimes it is not possible to approximate the runtime of the script. In these cases, it would be nice to display the ETA since this will clutter the process name with unnecessary information.

To prevent users from using this library without displaying the eta by default, a new flag no_iterations was introduced. If set to true, the ETA string will not be displayed. To prevent users from accidentally disabling the ETA string, a RuntimeError is thrown if step is called while no_iterations is set to true.

@D0miH D0miH added the enhancement New feature or request label Jan 11, 2023
@D0miH D0miH requested review from braun-steven and k4ntz January 11, 2023 10:38
@D0miH D0miH self-assigned this Jan 11, 2023
@braun-steven
Copy link
Contributor

Mh, not sure if I agree. The whole idea of rtpt is, that others can see the ETA for processes running on the machines to get a feeling for when a certain GPU might be available. Which use case do you have in mind?

@D0miH
Copy link
Author

D0miH commented Jan 11, 2023

At the moment, in my opinion, a huge problem is that if you are using Jupyter notebooks on the GPUs there is no "easy" way to name the process. With this change, you could just instantiate rtpt at the beginning of the notebook and others could contact you if your process is blocking a GPU for an extensive amount of time.

@braun-steven
Copy link
Contributor

I guess we could introduce an "interactive" mode that requires a special description and removes the need for calling step() to indicate that the user is running some interactive application like jupyter. I would not like to freely make the option to simply remove the ETA available without specifying what the user actually does because then people might be tempted to not worry about all the ETA stuff in the first place, even when they perfectly could give the proper values so that RPTP can function as expected.

@D0miH
Copy link
Author

D0miH commented Jan 11, 2023

Yeah, an interactive mode sounds like a better idea. Maybe instead of an ETA we could even add a timestamp when the Jupyter script was started to check if it is still actively in use or not.

@D0miH
Copy link
Author

D0miH commented Jan 11, 2023

I will have a look at this at some time.

@braun-steven
Copy link
Contributor

Yes, this sounds much better :) we could just use the same functionality of the ETA stuff to measure the time since init to display "since:xxx" and adapt the eta case with "eta:xxx".

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants