Skip to content

Support for slim based models? #22

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

Closed
niyazpk opened this issue Dec 14, 2017 · 2 comments
Closed

Support for slim based models? #22

niyazpk opened this issue Dec 14, 2017 · 2 comments

Comments

@niyazpk
Copy link

niyazpk commented Dec 14, 2017

Is there any way to use sagemaker for training/testing the (imagenet pretrained) models that come with TF models (these are based on TF slim)? Is there any documentation that you can point me towards for this?

Thanks!

@iquintero
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @niyazpk

Thanks for your interest in SageMaker!

Yes, you can use an existing model using the python sdk. You can do it through your model_fn

We have an example for that available here using the model fn to create a resnet network.

In your case the parameters are already pre trained. Also TF slim is compatible with regular TF so that should not be any issue.

@mvsusp
Copy link
Contributor

mvsusp commented Dec 22, 2017

Hi @niyazpk,

I am going to close this ticket. Feel free to open it again if you need additional assistance.

Thanks for using SageMaker.

@mvsusp mvsusp closed this as completed Dec 22, 2017
laurenyu pushed a commit to laurenyu/sagemaker-python-sdk that referenced this issue May 31, 2018
* Initial checkin of SageMaker HPO Analytics library.
apacker pushed a commit to apacker/sagemaker-python-sdk that referenced this issue Nov 15, 2018
Added: Data Distribution Types Notebook Example
athewsey pushed a commit to athewsey/sagemaker-python-sdk that referenced this issue May 27, 2021
Add HuggingFaceProcessor and fix local mode
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants