Add an example for local mode deployment of models #304
Conversation
iquintero
force-pushed
the
local_model_model_doc_update
branch
from
aebcfb4 to
1778849
Compare
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #304 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 92.75% 92.75%
=======================================
Files 50 50
Lines 3466 3466
=======================================
Hits 3215 3215
Misses 251 251Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
README.rst
Outdated
| @@ -192,6 +192,24 @@ instance type. | |||
| mxnet_estimator.delete_endpoint() | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| If you have an existing model and would like to deploy it locally you can do that as well. Make sure | |||
| you don't pass a real sagemaker_session to the Model constructor. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
my natural question to "don't pass a real one" is "what should I pass instead?" Maybe instead something like "make sure you don't pass anything for the sagemaker_session arg in the Model constructor"?
If there is an existing model it can be deployed locally using local mode. This feature is already present but there is no example in the README.
iquintero
force-pushed
the
local_model_model_doc_update
branch
from
1778849 to
2540a55
Compare
| @@ -192,6 +192,30 @@ instance type. | |||
| mxnet_estimator.delete_endpoint() | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| If you have an existing model and would like to deploy it locally you can do that as well. If you don't | |||
| specify a sagemaker_session argument to the MXNetModel constructor, the right session will be generated | |||
| when calling model.deploy() | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This still sounds like a choice to me - shouldn't we just instruct the user to not supply a session object? (or would there be a reason for a user to want to construct a local session separately?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is similar to how the rest of the SDK works. they can provide their own Local Session if they want, with custom config settings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what is a better wording ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
maybe something like "This requires a Local Session (maybe include a link to documentation?) to run. If you don't specify..." or "If you want to specify a sagemaker session, make sure it's a local session"
Add missing comma in tf cifar notebook.
If there is an existing model it can be deployed locally
using local mode. This feature is already present but there
is no example in the README.
Issue #, if available:
Description of changes:
Merge Checklist
Put an
xin the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your pull request.By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.