Skip to content
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

Validate whether transferred model equals local model #265

Closed
MaxiBoether opened this issue May 25, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #295
Closed

Validate whether transferred model equals local model #265

MaxiBoether opened this issue May 25, 2023 · 0 comments · Fixed by #295

Comments

@MaxiBoether
Copy link
Contributor

MaxiBoether commented May 25, 2023

When the trainer server uploads the model to the model storage, we could send a hash at the end to validate whether the file that the models storage received really equals the file that the trainer server wanted to send to identify if something went wrong.

We can use something like md5 hashing of big files as discussed here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/1131238/1625689

@robin-oester robin-oester self-assigned this May 25, 2023
@robin-oester robin-oester linked a pull request Aug 16, 2023 that will close this issue
robin-oester added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 25, 2023
Currently, we use a naïve approach in order to store our trained models
in the model storage. We want to have the possibility to do this more
efficiently via pluggable policies. In particular, we want to support
the following:

- store first model of a pipeline with all layer information and other
metadata
- store subsequent models more efficiently by just storing
weights/biases
- implement other approach, using xor-difference between successive
models and storing float exponent bits separately
- create infrastructure to make these approaches pluggable and modularly
expandable
- make approaches configurable (with additional options) in pipeline
config

This should enable us to examine basic research questions in multi-model
management. Corresponding issues: #293, #265
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants