←back to thread

DeepSeek-v3.1

(api-docs.deepseek.com)
776 points wertyk | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
danielhanchen ◴[] No.44978800[source]
For local runs, I made some GGUFs! You need around RAM + VRAM >= 250GB for good perf for dynamic 2bit (2bit MoE, 6-8bit rest) - can also do SSD offloading but it'll be slow.

./llama.cpp/llama-cli -hf unsloth/DeepSeek-V3.1-GGUF:UD-Q2_K_XL -ngl 99 --jinja -ot ".ffn_.*_exps.=CPU"

More details on running + optimal params here: https://docs.unsloth.ai/basics/deepseek-v3.1

replies(6): >>44979837 #>>44980406 #>>44981373 #>>44982860 #>>44984274 #>>44987809 #
pshirshov ◴[] No.44979837[source]
By the way, I'm wondering why unsloth (a goddamn python library) tries to run apt-get with sudo (and fails on my nixos). Like how tf we are supposed to use that?
replies(2): >>44980068 #>>44981691 #
danielhanchen ◴[] No.44980068[source]
Oh hey I'm assuming this is for conversion to GGUF after a finetune? If you need to quantize to GGUF Q4_K_M, we have to compile llama.cpp, hence apt-get and compiling llama.cpp within a Python shell.

There is a way to convert to Q8_0, BF16, F16 without compiling llama.cpp, and it's enabled if you use `FastModel` and not on `FastLanguageModel`

Essentially I try to do `sudo apt-get` if it fails then `apt-get` and if all fails, it just fails. We need `build-essential cmake curl libcurl4-openssl-dev`

See https://github.com/unslothai/unsloth-zoo/blob/main/unsloth_z...

replies(5): >>44980567 #>>44980608 #>>44980665 #>>44982700 #>>44983011 #
elteto ◴[] No.44980567[source]
Dude, this is NEVER ok. What in the world??? A third party LIBRARY running sudo commands? That’s just insane.

You just fail and print a nice error message telling the user exactly what they need to do, including the exact apt command or whatever that they need to run.

replies(4): >>44980604 #>>44980675 #>>44980823 #>>44983311 #
danielhanchen ◴[] No.44980675[source]
Yes I had that at the start, but people kept complaining they don't know how to actually run terminal commands, hence the shortcut :(

I was thinking if I can do it during the pip install or via setup.py which will do the apt-get instead.

As a fallback, I'll probably for now remove shell executions and just warn the user

replies(2): >>44981039 #>>44982238 #
rfoo ◴[] No.44982238[source]
IMO the correct thing to do to make these people happy, while being sane, is - do not build llama.cpp on their system. Instead, bundle a portable llama.cpp binary along with unsloth, so that when they install unsloth with `pip` (or `uv`) they get it.

Some people may prefer using whatever llama.cpp in $PATH, it's okay to support that, though I'd say doing so may lead to more confused noob users spam - they may just have an outdated version lurking in $PATH.

Doing so makes unsloth wheel platform-dependent, if this is too much of a burden, then maybe you can just package llama.cpp binary and have it on PyPI, like how scipy guys maintain a https://pypi.org/project/cmake/ on PyPI (yes, you can `pip install cmake`), and then depends on it (maybe in an optional group, I see you already have a lot due to cuda shit).

replies(1): >>44982421 #
1. danielhanchen ◴[] No.44982421[source]
Oh yes I was working on providing binaries together with pip - currently we're relying on pyproject.toml, but once we utilize setup.py (I think), using binaries gets much simpler

I'm still working on it, but sadly I'm not a packaging person so progress has been nearly zero :(

replies(2): >>44982626 #>>44983062 #
2. ffsm8 ◴[] No.44982626[source]
I think you misunderstood rfoos suggestion slightly.

From how I interpreted it, he meant you could create a new python package, this would effectively be the binary you need.

In your current package, you could depend on the new one, and through that - pull in the binary.

This would let you easily decouple your package from the binary,too - so it'd be easy to update the binary to latest even without pushing a new version of your original package

I've maintained release pipelines before and handled packaging in a previous job, but I'm not particularly into the python ecosystem, so take this with a grain of salt: an approach would be

Pip Packages :

    * Unsloth: current package, prefers using unsloth-llama, and uses path llama-cpp as fallback (with error msg as final fallback if neither exist, promoting install for unsloth-llama)
    * Unsloth-llama: new package which only bundles the llama cpp binary
replies(1): >>44982737 #
3. danielhanchen ◴[] No.44982737[source]
Oh ok sorry maybe I misunderstood sorry! I actually found my partial work I did for precompiled binaries! https://huggingface.co/datasets/unsloth/precompiled_llama_cp...

I was trying to see if I could pre-compile some llama.cpp binaries then save them as a zip file (I'm a noob sorry) - but I definitely need to investigate further on how to do python pip binaries

replies(1): >>44985855 #
4. rat9988 ◴[] No.44983062[source]
Don't worry. Don't let the rednecks screaming here affect you. As for one, I'm happy that you have automated this part and sad to see it is going away. People will always complain. It might be reasonable feedback worth acting upon. Don't let their tone distract you though. Some of them are just angry all day.
replies(1): >>44984079 #
5. danielhanchen ◴[] No.44984079[source]
Thanks - hopefully the compromise solution ie python input asking for user permissions works ok?
replies(1): >>44985090 #
6. rpdillon ◴[] No.44985090{3}[source]
As a guy that would naturally be in the camp of "installing packages is never okay", I also live in the more practical world where people want things to work. I think the compromise you're suggesting is a pretty good one. I think the highest quality implementation here would be.

Try to find prebuilt and download.

See if you can compile from source if a compiler is installed.

If no compiler: prompt to install via sudo apt and explaining why, also give option to abort and have the user install a compiler themselves.

This isn't perfect, but limits the cases where prompting is necessary.

replies(1): >>44987992 #
7. docfort ◴[] No.44985855{3}[source]
https://docs.astral.sh/uv/guides/package/#publishing-your-pa...
replies(1): >>45000136 #
8. danielhanchen ◴[] No.44987992{4}[source]
I'm going to see if I can make prebuilt versions work :) But thanks!
9. danielhanchen ◴[] No.45000136{4}[source]
Oh thanks - we currently use Pypi so pip install works - https://pypi.org/project/unsloth/

But I think similarly for uv we need a setup.py for packaging binaries (more complex)