-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.8k
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
No Improvement in Training Time with more Cores on LightGBM #6730
Comments
Thanks for using LightGBM. I've attempted to reformat your post a bit to make it easier to read... if you are new to markdown / GitHub, please see https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/writing-on-github/getting-started-with-writing-and-formatting-on-github/basic-writing-and-formatting-syntax for some tips on making such changes yourself. You haven't provided enough information yet for us to help you with this report.
|
Packages in Environment: Data Summary: #classification model Numerical Features Summary: Feature 2: Categorical Features: Feature 2: Cardinality: Total Memory Usage: |
Thanks for that. So it looks like you're actually using LightGBM 4.5.0, and working in Python (given all those Python libraries in the output you shared). Still though, please:
|
Description
Training a 6GB dataset with LightGBM using n_jobs=70 does not result in a proportional reduction in training time. Despite utilizing a machine with 72 cores and setting a high n_jobs value, the training time remains unexpectedly high.
Environment
LightGBM Setup
Request for Support
Explanation of why
n_jobs
scaling is not improving training time.Suggestions for configurations to fully utilize 70 cores for LightGBM training.
Recommendations for debugging and monitoring specific to LightGBM threading or system-level bottlenecks.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: