You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I would like to use DTables.jl where each DTable or GDTable exists on exactly one process and does not migrate (so, effectively using DTables.jl just for its out-of-core processing capabilities). It looks like Dagger.@spawn has some support for ensuring a task executes on a given process. Does DTables.jl support the scope kwarg of Dagger.@spawn? And is what I want to do possible/feasible?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Any tips? I guess it appears all the chunks are on the correct process, but since the scope isn't what I set it to be, could the chunks be migrated to another process?
@jpsamaroo is this expected or is it a bug? Seems like the result chunk doesn't inherit options
Options get passed into the task scope properly. Haven't seen options of results tested anywhere in tests
julia> t = Dagger.with_options(; scope=ProcessScope(1)) do
Dagger.spawn(Dagger.get_options)
end
EagerThunk (finished)
julia>fetch(t.future.future)[2].scope
AnyScope()
julia>fetch(t)
(scope = ProcessScope: worker ==1,)
I would like to use DTables.jl where each
DTable
orGDTable
exists on exactly one process and does not migrate (so, effectively using DTables.jl just for its out-of-core processing capabilities). It looks likeDagger.@spawn
has some support for ensuring a task executes on a given process. Does DTables.jl support thescope
kwarg ofDagger.@spawn
? And is what I want to do possible/feasible?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: