Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Ray: A Distributed Framework for Emerging AI Applications

Published 16 Dec 2017 in cs.DC, cs.AI, cs.LG, and stat.ML | (1712.05889v2)

Abstract: The next generation of AI applications will continuously interact with the environment and learn from these interactions. These applications impose new and demanding systems requirements, both in terms of performance and flexibility. In this paper, we consider these requirements and present Ray---a distributed system to address them. Ray implements a unified interface that can express both task-parallel and actor-based computations, supported by a single dynamic execution engine. To meet the performance requirements, Ray employs a distributed scheduler and a distributed and fault-tolerant store to manage the system's control state. In our experiments, we demonstrate scaling beyond 1.8 million tasks per second and better performance than existing specialized systems for several challenging reinforcement learning applications.

Citations (1,102)

Summary

  • The paper presents Ray, a unified system integrating task-parallel and actor-based models to meet diverse AI workload requirements.
  • It demonstrates near-linear scalability with over 1.8 million tasks per second and high-throughput object storage delivering up to 15GB/s.
  • Ray’s robust design supports reinforcement learning, outperforming specialized systems in Evolution Strategies and Proximal Policy Optimization tasks.

An Overview of Ray: A Distributed Framework for Emerging AI Applications

The paper "Ray: A Distributed Framework for Emerging AI Applications" by Moritz et al. introduces Ray, a distributed system designed to meet the rigorous performance and flexibility demands of the next generation of AI applications. The system integrates task-parallel and actor-based computations using a single dynamic execution engine, which is supported by a distributed scheduler and a fault-tolerant store managing control state. The authors demonstrate Ray's scalability and performance through extensive evaluations, particularly highlighting its efficacy for reinforcement learning (RL) tasks.

Motivations and Requirements

Contemporary AI applications increasingly require systems capable of interacting dynamically with their environments, generating and evaluating actions in millisecond intervals, and handling heterogeneous workloads involving both CPU and GPU resources. Existing systems typically fall short in addressing these needs for fine-grained, dynamic computations and stateful interactions. This gap is particularly significant for reinforcement learning workloads, which demand tight coupling of training, simulation, and serving phases.

Design and Architecture

Ray is structured to meet these ambitious requirements through several key design principles:

  1. Unified Interface: Ray offers a programming model that combines both task-parallel and actor-based abstractions. Tasks are used for stateless computations, enabling efficient load balancing and fault recovery, while actors cater to stateful computations, necessary for model training and maintaining shared mutable state.
  2. Dynamic Execution: Ray's computation is modeled as a dynamic task graph where tasks and actor methods form nodes connected by data, control, and stateful edges. This approach allows for real-time task creation and dependency management, facilitating the development and execution of complex RL workflows.
  3. Distributed Scheduler and Control Store: To handle the expected high throughput, Ray employs a bottom-up distributed scheduler coupled with a global control store (GCS). The GCS enables scalable storage of control state and metadata about tasks and objects, supporting lineage-based fault tolerance and efficient task scheduling.

Performance and Scalability

The paper presents strong empirical results to substantiate the system's design:

  • Task Throughput: Ray achieves over 1.8 million tasks per second on a 100-node cluster, showing near-linear scalability. This performance is crucial for workloads that involve fine-grained tasks typical in AI applications.
  • Object Store: The in-memory distributed object store in Ray provides high throughput (up to 15GB/s) and IOPS, ensuring efficient data exchange between tasks, particularly relevant for high-frequency, low-latency operations.
  • Fault Tolerance: Ray's fault tolerance is validated through both task and actor reconstruction experiments. The system's ability to handle node failures seamlessly while maintaining task throughput underscores its robustness for production environments.

Application Insights

The utility of Ray is further highlighted through its performance in RL workloads:

  • Evolution Strategies (ES): Ray's ES implementation scales effectively to 8192 cores, achieving more than twice the performance speed of specialized systems without requiring substantial custom optimizations.
  • Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO): The PPO implementation in Ray outperforms specialized MPI-based implementations, achieving better performance with fewer resources. This signifies Ray's capability to handle complex, heterogeneous workloads efficiently.

Implications and Future Directions

Ray's architecture and performance make it a compelling choice for building and scaling the next generation of AI applications, particularly those involving dynamic interactions and stateful computations. The system's design principles could inspire future frameworks to adopt similar scalable and fault-tolerant approaches, particularly the use of a global control store and decoupled scheduling mechanisms.

Potential future developments may include enhancing the API to support higher-level abstractions, profiling-based scheduling optimizations, and more sophisticated garbage collection strategies for the GCS. Additionally, extending Ray to natively support more complex dataflows and distributed objects could further broaden its applicability.

In summary, Ray represents a significant step forward in distributed systems for AI, offering the flexibility, scalability, and performance necessary to meet the demands of modern applications. Its innovative integration of task and actor-based models provides a versatile platform poised to facilitate advancements in AI research and deployment.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

Practical Applications

Below, we translate the paper’s findings into concrete, real-world applications and workflows. We group them by when they can realistically be deployed, indicate relevant sectors, outline likely tools/products/processes, and list key assumptions and dependencies that affect feasibility.

Immediate Applications

These can be deployed now using Ray’s existing features (unified task/actor APIs, dynamic task graph, bottom-up distributed scheduler, Global Control Store, in-memory object store, Python integration, GPU/CPU heterogeneity).

  • Scalable RL training pipelines and “simulation farms” — sectors: robotics, autonomous systems, gaming, ad-tech, finance
    • What: Run thousands of heterogeneous simulations in parallel (actors) with on-the-fly postprocessing and training (tasks), supporting policy evaluation/improvement cycles.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Internal “RL platform” combining simulator actors, GPU-backed training actors/parameter servers, and task-based data processing; self-play and multi-agent orchestration.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Available simulators (e.g., MuJoCo, OpenAI Gym), GPUs/CPUs, stable cluster networking; policy algorithms remain sample-inefficient, so simulation throughput is key.
  • Distributed hyperparameter search, ablations, and reproducibility at scale — sectors: industry R&D, academia
    • What: Launch many short-lived trials as tasks/actors; use ray.wait to adaptively allocate compute to promising trials.
    • Tools/products/workflows: “Auto-tuner” services; experiment dashboards using GCS metadata for lineage, profiling, and visualization.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Sufficient cluster capacity; experiment tracking and result storage integrated externally (e.g., with MLflow).
  • Parameter-server and allreduce-style training via actors/tasks — sectors: software/AI platforms
    • What: Implement stateful parameter servers (actors) and communication-efficient collectives (tasks) for distributed SGD in RL or supervised learning components.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Drop-in Ray-based training backends for PyTorch/TF; mixed CPU/GPU resource scheduling.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Integration with DL frameworks; network bandwidth for gradient exchange; not a replacement for highly optimized vendor collectives in all cases.
  • Low-latency policy serving microservices with stateful actors — sectors: robotics, IoT, gaming, personalization
    • What: Serve policies as actors for interactive control; use tasks for pre/post-processing steps; exploit millisecond-level latency.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Lightweight serving tier for RL control loops; A/B testing for policies in contextual bandits.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: For production model management, pair with serving systems (e.g., TensorFlow Serving, Clipper); SLOs depend on network and co-location with data.
  • Multi-agent and self-play experimentation at cluster scale — sectors: gaming, robotics, operations research
    • What: Orchestrate large numbers of interacting agents as actors; dynamically spawn tasks for rollouts and evaluation.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Self-play ladders, league training, distributed evaluation harnesses.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Well-defined agent APIs; simulator determinism/seed control for reproducibility.
  • Backtesting and strategy evaluation at scale — sectors: finance, e-commerce, logistics
    • What: Run millions of short simulations or rollouts (tasks) and maintain strategy state (actors) to evaluate policies.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Portfolio of strategy trials; live-to-paper comparisons with quick iteration.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Access to historical data and market simulators; governance constraints for production deployment.
  • Dynamic, branching ML/RL workflows (DAGs) with mixed compute — sectors: MLOps, scientific computing
    • What: Orchestrate workflows that conditionally expand based on intermediate results (ray.wait-driven), mixing stateless tasks and stateful actors.
    • Tools/products/workflows: “RL Ops” pipelines for data collection, training, evaluation, and canary deployment.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: External data stores for large artifacts; not a substitute for full-fledged data-parallel query engines.
  • Fast feature extraction and post-simulation ETL for high-dimensional inputs — sectors: vision, AV/robotics, media
    • What: Use tasks for locality-aware postprocessing (e.g., image/video) while simulators run as stateful actors.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Zero-copy in-node data sharing with Arrow; GPU-accelerated preprocessing steps scheduled via resource annotations.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Dataset sizes that fit per-node memory; big-batch ETL may still favor Spark-like systems.
  • Education and lab environments for RL courses and prototyping — sectors: education, academia
    • What: Provide students/researchers an easy-to-install cluster-capable RL toolkit (pip install ray) for labs, assignments, and reproducible research.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Prebuilt templates for rollouts, training loops, and visualization using GCS.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Access to shared campus clusters or cloud credits; instructor support for cluster setup.
  • Prototyping RL-driven resource management — sectors: cloud, DevOps
    • What: Train and evaluate RL policies for autoscaling, placement, and scheduling within a testbed; leverage Ray’s own scheduler as a realistic substrate.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Closed-loop experiments that adjust resource usage and observe performance metrics.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Sandboxed/non-production environment; careful transfer to production schedulers needed.
  • Lightweight instrumentation and debugging for distributed experiments — sectors: all
    • What: Use the GCS to build profiling/lineage tools that help diagnose bottlenecks (task latencies, object locality, failure recovery).
    • Tools/products/workflows: Experiment timelines, per-actor performance plots; lineage-driven replay for fault analysis.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Engineering effort to surface metrics; retention policy for metadata and logs.

Long-Term Applications

These require further research, larger-scale engineering, stronger guarantees (safety/robustness), or integration with domain-specific systems and regulations.

  • Safety-critical, city-scale control (traffic signals, public transit) — sectors: public policy, smart cities
    • What: Train and evaluate RL control policies via large-scale simulation; phased deployment to live intersections using serving actors.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Digital twins of cities; policy sandboxes with scenario generation; human-in-the-loop oversight.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: High-fidelity simulators; regulatory approval; robust off-policy evaluation and fail-safes.
  • Grid and building energy optimization — sectors: energy/utilities
    • What: Closed-loop RL to reduce energy consumption and balance loads across distributed assets; simulation in the loop for planning.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Fleet-level orchestration of energy devices; demand response programs guided by RL.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Real-time telemetry; reliability and stability constraints; coordination with market rules.
  • Clinical decision support and hospital operations — sectors: healthcare
    • What: Train policies via simulations and retrospective data; deploy cautiously in decision support roles, not autonomous control.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Offline RL pipelines; physician-in-the-loop interfaces; continuous monitoring/validation.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Privacy and compliance (HIPAA/GDPR); rigorous evaluation and oversight; robustness under shift.
  • Industrial robotics and sim-to-real learning — sectors: manufacturing, logistics
    • What: Large-scale simulated training (actors) plus transfer learning and real-world data collection; serving actors for on-robot control.
    • Tools/products/workflows: “Robotics RL stack” integrating simulators, domain randomization, and safety envelopes.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Bridging sim-to-real gap; real-time constraints; certification and safety frameworks.
  • Personalized education and tutoring systems — sectors: education/edtech
    • What: Contextual bandits/RL policies served to learners; large-scale simulation and A/B testing to validate learning gains.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Adaptive content sequencing; policy dashboards for educators.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Ethical guardrails; privacy and informed consent; long-horizon reward design.
  • Federated or privacy-preserving RL — sectors: healthcare, finance, public sector
    • What: Cross-institution training without raw data sharing; actor-based parameter servers supporting secure aggregation.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Federated RL orchestration atop Ray; differential privacy add-ons; audit trails via GCS.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Secure transport and cryptographic primitives; performance under privacy constraints; legal agreements.
  • Nationwide-scale multi-agent simulations and digital twins — sectors: policy, defense, macroeconomics
    • What: Model complex systems with millions of agents (actors) to stress-test policies and interventions.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Scenario libraries, policy evaluation suites, and visualization layers.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: HPC-scale compute/networking; validated agent models; governance for public-sector decision-making.
  • Edge/geo-distributed RL serving and training — sectors: IoT, telco, automotive
    • What: Extend Ray’s scheduling and object store concepts across WAN/edge to support low-latency local decisions with periodic global aggregation.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Hierarchical schedulers spanning edge-to-cloud; bandwidth-aware object movement.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: WAN-aware scheduling extensions; intermittent connectivity handling; security/multi-tenancy.
  • High-frequency trading and ultra-low-latency control — sectors: finance, industrial control
    • What: Use Ray to prototype RL strategies; eventual production paths require tighter latency bounds and specialized hardware.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Hybrid pipelines where training/evaluation scales on Ray; production serving on bespoke low-latency stacks.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Sub-millisecond SLOs likely exceed general-purpose runtime; compliance and risk constraints.
  • End-to-end “RL Ops” products integrating model mgmt, monitoring, rollback — sectors: software/MLOps
    • What: Build full-lifecycle platforms that unify Ray’s training/simulation/serving with model registry, canary deploys, and governance.
    • Tools/products/workflows: Policy versioning, shadow deployment, automatic rollback, continuous evaluation.
    • Assumptions/dependencies: Integration with serving/model-management systems; organization-wide SRE/MLOps practices.

Notes on feasibility and dependencies common to many applications:

  • Compute and networking: Achieving millions of tasks/sec depends on sufficient cluster size, reliable low-latency networks, and balanced CPU/GPU availability.
  • Software stack: Python environment, Arrow-based zero-copy data sharing, Redis-backed GCS with chain replication; operational maturity for Redis or a production-grade replacement is key.
  • Scope boundaries: Ray is not a replacement for full-fledged serving systems (model management) or big data frameworks (rich data-parallel APIs); expect integrations.
  • Safety, security, and compliance: Applications in regulated or safety-critical domains require additional layers (verification, monitoring, privacy, access control) not provided out of the box.
  • Algorithmic maturity: Many RL applications remain sample-inefficient and sensitive to reward design; system performance alone does not guarantee successful outcomes.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 14 tweets with 32 likes about this paper.