-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 61
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
Add FineTuning example infra #122
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Signed-off-by: KfreeZ <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Wu, Xiaochang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Wu, Xiaochang <[email protected]>
seems this PR has included code changes of #116, looks like a merge or rebase is needed |
…o add-finetuning
Signed-off-by: Wu, Xiaochang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Wu, Xiaochang <[email protected]>
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
…into add-finetuning
Signed-off-by: Wu, Xiaochang <[email protected]>
spec: | ||
containers: | ||
- name: opea-finetune | ||
image: opea-finetune:latest |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is the image name correct? Do you mean opea/finetune?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the comment, It's a draft PR now. I will revise the image name.
name: opea-finetune-entrypoint | ||
namespace: default | ||
spec: | ||
type: NodePort |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If NodePort is not must, please remove it. NodePort will cause conflict in the CI test machine.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
thanks, I will remove that. do you have a port assignment rule for each new microservice?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
not much rules. It's better to use a same port as mega service but using ClusterIP to avoid hard coded port number. For your reference: https://github.com/opea-project/GenAIInfra/blob/main/manifests/DocSum/xeon/tgi_service.yaml#L17
@xwu99 Please add e2e test for this workload. You can follow the format of manifest test script to add three functions: |
thanks, I will follow. |
Description
Infra for adding FineTuning example
Related PRs:
opea-project/GenAIComps#236
opea-project/GenAIExamples#315
Issues
List the issue or RFC link this PR is working on. If there is no such link, please mark it as
n/a
.Type of change
List the type of change like below. Please delete options that are not relevant.
Dependencies
List the newly introduced 3rd party dependency if exists.
Tests
Describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes.