Workshop 4: Instrumenting & Evaluating LLMs

notes
llms
Workshop #4 focuses on the practical aspects of deploying fine-tuned LLMs, covering various deployment patterns, performance optimization techniques, and platform considerations.
Author

Christian Mills

Published

July 17, 2024

This post is part of the following series:
  • Mastering LLMs Course Notes: My notes from the course Mastering LLMs: A Conference For Developers & Data Scientists by Hamel Husain and Dan Becker.

Serving Overview

Recap on LoRAs

  • LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation): A parameter-efficient fine-tuning technique that introduces small adapter matrices into the model’s layers, significantly reducing the number of trainable parameters compared to full fine-tuning.
  • Benefits of LoRA: Reduced memory requirements during training and deployment, enabling fine-tuning on consumer-grade hardware and efficient serving of multiple adapters.
  • Deployment Options:
    • Keep LoRA separate: Store LoRA weights in a separate file and load them during inference.
    • Merge LoRA with base model: Combine the learned LoRA weights with the original model weights into a single file.
    • Hot-swapping adapters: Dynamically load and unload adapters on demand, sharing the base model among multiple adapters.

Performance vs Costs

  • Key Trade-off: Balancing performance (latency and throughput) with cost (GPU usage and idle time).
  • Factors Influencing Performance and Cost:
    • GPU speed: More powerful GPUs offer lower latency but are more expensive.
    • Model size: Larger models generally perform better but require more resources and time.
    • Engineering optimizations: Platform-level optimizations can improve efficiency.
    • Cold start vs. idle time: Loading models onto GPUs takes time (cold start), but keeping them loaded incurs idle time cost.
  • Hot-swapping adapters: A strategy to mitigate the cold start vs. idle time trade-off by serving multiple LoRAs on the same GPU, ensuring consistent traffic and reducing idle time.

Many Applications Aren’t Real-Time

  • Real-time vs. batch/offline processing: Many LLM applications do not require real-time responses, allowing for batch processing and reducing cost by scaling down GPUs when not in use.
  • Examples of batch/offline use cases:
    • Generating alt text for images
    • Extracting information from documents
    • Editing text
    • Analytics tools

Real-Time vs Batch/Offline

  • Real-time use cases: Applications like chatbots and code assistants require low latency responses.
  • Batch/offline use cases: Tasks like data analysis, text summarization, and content generation can be processed in batches.

Merging LoRA to Base

  • Workflow example:

    1. Train a LoRA model and save the adapter weights.

    2. Merge the LoRA weights with the base model weights into a single file (potentially sharded for large models).

      •   root@724562262aec:/workspace/demo# ls outputs/qlora-out/
  README.md         checkpoint-1         checkpoint-4         tokenizer.json
  adapter_config.json    checkpoint-2         config.json          tokenizer_config.json
  adapter_model.bin     checkpoint-3         special_tokens_map.json
        • adapter_model.bin size: 168 MB
      •   root@724562262aec:/workspace/demo# python3 -m axolotl.cli.merge_lora ./qlora.yml --dora_model_dir="./outputs/qlora-out"
      •   root@724562262aec:/workspace/demo# ls outputs/qlora-out/merged
  config.json             pytorch_model-00003-of-00004.bin   tokenizer.json
  generation_config.json        pytorch_model-00004-of-00004.bin   tokenizer_config.json
  pytorch_model-00001-of-00004.bin   pytorch_model.bin.index.json
  pytorch_model-00002-of-00004.bin   special_tokens_map.json
        • merged .bin files: 16 GB

    3. Push the merged model files to a platform like HuggingFace Hub.

Push Model Files to HF Hub

  • HuggingFace inference endpoints: A platform for serving models with options for automatic scaling and GPU selection.
  • Workflow example:

    1. Create a HuggingFace repository.

      •   pip install -U "huggingface_hub[cli]"
  huggingface-cli repo create conference-demo

    2. Copy the merged model files to the repository.

      •   cp ./outputs/qlora-out/merged/* conference-demo

    3. Use Git LFS to track large files.

      •   git lfs track "*.bin"

    4. Push the repository to HuggingFace Hub.

      •   git add *

    5. Deploy the model using HuggingFace inference endpoints, choosing appropriate scaling and GPU options.

Model Deployment Patterns

The Many Faces of Deployments

  • Factors Simple, lots of tools Some tools, customization may be needed
    Speed (time to response) Slow: Results needed in minutes e.g. portfolio optimization Fast: Results needed in milliseconds e.g. high-frequency trading
    Scale (requests/second) Low: 10 request/sec or less e.g. an internal dashboard High: 10k requests / sec or more e.g. a popular e-commerce site
    Pace of improvement Low: Updates infrequently e.g. a stable, marginal model High: Constant iteration needed e.g. an innovative, important model
    Real-time inputs needed? No real-time inputs e.g. analyze past data Yes, real-time inputs e.g. targeted travel ads
    Reliability requirement Low: Ok to fail occasionally e.g. a proof of concept High: Must not fail e.g. a fraud detection model
    Model complexity Simple models e.g. linear regression Complex models e.g. LLMs

Simple Model Serving

  • Direct interface with model library: Using frameworks like FastAPI to serve models with minimal overhead.
  • Suitable for: Proof of concepts, small-scale applications with low performance demands.

Advanced Model Serving

Kinds of Model Serving

  • Decision Tree:

Decision Tree A Is there a finite enough set of inputs known in advance? B Precompute responses A->B Yes C Is it ok to return responses asynchronously in minutes? A->C No D Trigger a workflow to compute responses C->D Yes E Are you comfortable operating services by yourself? C->E No F Do you require large scale or low latency? E->F Yes I Use a managed model hosting service: Amazon SageMaker, Anyscale E->I No G Deploy an advanced stack: NVIDIA F->G Yes H Deploy a simple service: OpenLLM, FastAPI F->H No

GPU Poor Benchmark (Wrong, but useful)

  • Benchmarking inference servers: Experiment with different servers to find the best fit for your use case.
  • Observations:
    • vLLM: Easy to use, good performance trade-offs.
    • NVIDIA stack (Triton + TensorRT): High performance but complex to use.
    • Quantization: Can significantly impact performance, but evaluate quality trade-offs.

Case Study: Honeycomb - Replicate

Why Replicate?

  • Real-time Use Case: The Honeycomb example demands real-time responses within the Honeycomb interface, making a platform like Replicate ideal.
  • User-Friendly Playground: Replicate provides a playground environment with structured input, beneficial for non-technical users to interact with the model.
  • Permalink Functionality: Replicate generates permalinks for predictions, which simplifies debugging and sharing specific scenarios with collaborators.
  • Built-in Documentation and API: Replicate automatically generates documentation and API endpoints for easy integration and sharing.
  • Example Saving: The platform allows users to save specific examples for future reference and testing.

Show Me the Code

Files:

  • cog.yaml: Defines the Docker environment and specifies the entry point (predict.py).
  • predict.py: Contains the model loading, setup, and prediction logic.

Steps: 1. Environment Setup: - Install Cog (a Docker wrapper that simplifies CUDA management). - Download the model weights from Hugging Face Hub (optional, for local testing). 2. Code Structure: - cog.yaml: - Specifies the base Docker image and dependencies. - Defines the predict.py file as the entry point. - ```yaml # Configuration for Cog ⚙️ # Reference: https://github.com/replicate/cog/blob/main/docs/yaml.md

      build:
       # set to true if your model requires a GPU
       gpu: true
       cuda: "12.1"
      
       # python version in the form '3.8' or '3.8.12'
       python_version: "3.11"
      
       # a list of packages in the format <package-name>==<version>
       python_packages:
        - "hf_transfer==0.1.4"
        - "aiohttp[speedups]"
        - "torch==2.1.2"
      
       # commands run after the environment is setup
       run:
        - pip install "pydantic<2.0.0"
        - CUDA_HOME=/usr/local/cuda pip install --ignore-installed vllm==0.3.0
        - pip install https://r2.drysys.workers.dev/tmp/cog-0.10.0a6-py3-none-any.whl
        - bash -c 'ln -s /usr/local/lib/python3.11/site-packages/torch/lib/lib{nv,cu}* /usr/lib'
        - pip install scipy==1.11.4 sentencepiece==0.1.99 protobuf==4.23.4
        - ln -sf $(which echo) $(which pip)
      
      predict: "predict.py:Predictor"
      ```
- `predict.py`:
    - **Prompt Template:** Sets the structure for interacting with the LLM.
    - **Setup:**
        - Defines a `Predictor` class.
        - Loads the quantized model from Hugging Face Hub during initialization.
    - **Predict Function:**
        - Takes the natural language query and schema as input.
        - Processes the input through the LLM using vLLM.
        - Returns the generated Honeycomb query.
    
    - ```python
        import os
        os.environ["HF_HUB_ENABLE_HF_TRANSFER"] = "1"
        import torch
        from cog import BasePredictor
        from vllm import LLM, SamplingParams
        
        
        MODEL_ID = 'parlance-labs/hc-mistral-alpaca-merged-awq'
        MAX_TOKENS=2500
        
        PROMPT_TEMPLATE = """Honeycomb is an observability platform that allows you to write queries to inspect trace data. You are an assistant that takes a natural language query (NLQ) and a list of valid columns and produce a Honeycomb query.
        
        ### Instruction:
        
        NLQ: "{nlq}"
        
        Columns: {cols}
        
        ### Response:
        """
        
        class Predictor(BasePredictor):
            
          def setup(self):
            n_gpus = torch.cuda.device_count()
            self.sampling_params = SamplingParams(stop_token_ids=[2], temperature=0, ignore_eos=True, max_tokens=2500)
        
            self.llm = LLM(model='parlance-labs/hc-mistral-alpaca-merged-awq', 
                    tensor_parallel_size=n_gpus, quantization="AWQ")
        
          def predict(self, nlq: str, cols: str) -> str:    
            _p = PROMPT_TEMPLATE.format(nlq=nlq, cols=cols)
            out = self.llm.generate(_p, sampling_params=self.sampling_params, use_tqdm=False)
            return out[0].outputs[0].text.strip().strip('"')
        ```
  1. Local Testing:
    • Run Cog Server: cog run starts a local web server for interacting with the model. 
      •   cog run -e CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 -p 5000 python -m cog.server.http
    • Direct Prediction: cog predict -i input1=value1 input2=value2 allows for direct prediction using command-line arguments. 
      •   cog predict -e CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=0 -i nlq="EMISSING slowest traces" -i cols="['sli.latency', 'duration_ms', 'net.transport', 'http.method', 'error', 'http.target', 'http.route', 'rpc.method', 'ip', 'http.request_content_length', 'rpc.service', 'apdex', 'name', 'message.type', 'http.host', 'service.name', 'rpc.system', 'http.scheme', 'sli.platform-time', 'type', 'http.flavor', 'span.kind', 'dc.platform-time', 'library.version', 'status_code', 'net.host.port', 'net.host.ip', 'app.request_id', 'bucket_duration_ms', 'library.name', 'sli_product', 'message.uncompressed_size', 'rpc.grpc.status_code', 'net.peer.port', 'log10_duration_ms', 'http.status_code', 'status_message', 'http.user_agent', 'net.host.name', 'span.num_links', 'message.id', 'parent_name', 'app.cart_total', 'num_products', 'product_availability', 'revenue_at_risk', 'trace.trace_id', 'trace.span_id', 'ingest_timestamp', 'http.server_name', 'trace.parent_id']"
  2. Deployment to Replicate:
    • Create a Model on Replicate:
      • Choose a descriptive name.
      • Select appropriate hardware based on memory and GPU requirements.
      • Choose “Custom Cog Model” as the model type.
    • Login to Cog: cog login
    • Push to Replicate: cog push r8.im/hamelsmu/honeycomb-4-awq

Deploying Large Language Models

Deploying LLMs

  • Deploying LLMs is challenging, even in 2024, due to the multidimensional and zero-sum nature of performance optimization and the constant evolution of technology.

Challenges in Deploying LLMs

  • Multidimensional and Zero-Sum Performance: LLM performance involves trade-offs between various factors like speed, cost, and accuracy. Prioritizing one dimension often negatively impacts others.
    • Example: Increasing batch size improves throughput (total tokens per second) but reduces single-stream performance (tokens per second for a single request), impacting user experience.
  • Rapid Technology Evolution: The field is constantly evolving with new serving frameworks and optimization techniques emerging frequently. Keeping up with these changes while maintaining a performant and cost-effective deployment is demanding.

LLM Performance Bottlenecks

Two primary factors contribute to slow LLM inference:

  • Memory Bandwidth: Transformers require frequent data transfers between slow device memory and faster memory caches on GPUs.
  • Software Overhead: Launching and scheduling each operation in a model’s forward pass involves communication between CPU and GPU, creating overhead.

Techniques for Optimizing LLM Performance

  • Memory Bandwidth Optimization:
    • CUDA Kernel Optimization: Techniques like kernel fusion aim to minimize data transfer by combining multiple kernels into one.
    • Flash Attention: Improves efficiency by minimizing data movement during attention calculations.
    • Paged Attention: Optimizes data storage and transfer for increased efficiency.
    • Quantization: Reduces model size by using lower-precision data types, allowing for faster data transfer.
    • Speculative Decoding: Generates multiple tokens in parallel, discarding incorrect ones, to potentially reduce latency.
  • Software Overhead Reduction:
    • CUDA Kernel Optimization: Fewer, more efficient kernels lead to fewer kernel launches.
    • CUDA Graphs: Traces and combines all kernel launches in a forward pass into a single unit, reducing CPU-GPU communication.
  • Runtime Optimizations:
    • Continuous Batching: Enables efficient processing of requests with varying lengths by continuously adding and removing them from batches during inference.
    • KV Caching: Stores key-value embeddings during inference, avoiding redundant calculations for repeated inputs.
    • Hardware Upgrades: Using more powerful GPUs directly improves performance.
    • Input/Output Length Optimization: Shorter inputs and outputs reduce the number of tokens processed, potentially improving latency.

Continuous Batching

  • Continuous batching is a significant advancement in LLM serving that addresses limitations of traditional micro-batching.

  • Blog Post: How continuous batching enables 23x throughput in LLM inference while reducing p50 latency

  • How it Works: Processes requests as a stream of individual token generation steps, allowing for dynamic addition and removal of requests within a batch.

  • Benefits:

    • Eliminates the need to wait for a complete batch before processing, reducing latency.
    • Enables efficient handling of requests with varying lengths.

  • Consequences:

    • Results in dynamic batch sizes, making performance less predictable.
    • Requires careful consideration of performance SLAs and user experience.

Inference Servers

Various inference servers are available, each with its own strengths and weaknesses:

Performance Tuning

Understanding and tuning for different performance metrics is crucial:

  • Total Tokens Per Second (Throughput): Measures the overall token generation rate across all requests.
  • Single Stream Tokens Per Second (Latency): Measures the token generation rate for a single request, reflecting user experience.
  • Requests Per Second: Measures how many requests can be completed per second.

Key Considerations:

  • Increasing batch size generally improves throughput but reduces single-stream performance.
  • Finding the right balance between these metrics depends on the specific use case and desired user experience.
  • Clearly define performance SLOs and consider both throughput and latency when evaluating performance.

Simplifying LLM Deployment

Prioritize Modularity

Building a modular LLM serving stack is essential for navigating the challenges of the rapidly evolving technology landscape.

  • Benefits of Modularity:
    • Flexibility: Easily switch between different serving frameworks as needed to leverage new features or optimizations.
    • Experimentation: Enables efficient testing and comparison of different frameworks and configurations.
  • Challenges:
    • Compatibility Issues: Features and optimizations from different frameworks may not always work together seamlessly.
    • Lack of Documentation: New features and their interactions may not be well-documented, requiring experimentation and debugging.

Simplify LLM Deployment with Replicate

Replicate is a serverless infrastructure that aims to simplify LLM deployment and experimentation.

Replicate Features and Workflow

  • COG: Open-source tool for packaging models and serving code, providing control over the serving framework.
  • Hugging Face Integration: Streamlined workflow for pulling and deploying models from Hugging Face.
  • Performance Optimizations: Caching mechanisms and other optimizations to improve model download and cold boot times.
  • Open Source Approach: Replicate’s model serving infrastructure is open source, allowing for customization and contributions.

Workflow Example:

  1. Create a Training: Specify the model, Hugging Face ID, and other configurations through Replicate’s web interface.
  2. Transfer Weights: Replicate downloads weights from Hugging Face and pushes them to its optimized storage.
  3. Deploy and Access Model: Once the training is complete, the model is deployed and accessible through Replicate’s API or client libraries.
  4. Customize with COG: Utilize COG to customize the serving environment, experiment with different frameworks, and add features.

Key Advantages:

  • Simplified Deployment: Replicate abstracts away infrastructure complexities, making it easy to deploy and serve models.
  • Framework Flexibility: Supports multiple serving frameworks like vLLM and TRT-LLM, allowing for experimentation and optimization.
  • Open Source and Customizable: Provides transparency and control over the serving environment.

Lessons from Building A Serverless Platform - Predibase

Predibase Overview

  • Predibase is a managed platform for fine-tuning and serving LLMs.
  • It offers an end-to-end solution for prompting, fine-tuning, and deploying LLMs serverlessly or in dedicated environments.

The Case for Fine-Tuned LLMs

  • General Intelligence vs. Task Specificity: General-purpose LLMs like ChatGPT are powerful but inefficient for specific tasks. Fine-tuning allows for models tailored to specific business needs, reducing cost and latency.
  • Cost of Serving Multiple Models: Serving numerous fine-tuned models on dedicated deployments becomes expensive.
  • LoRAX - A Solution for Efficient Serving:
    • Lorax is an open-source framework built on HuggingFace’s TGI, designed for efficient fine-tuned LLM inference.
    • It enables serving multiple fine-tuned models concurrently on a single deployment by sharing base model parameters and using heterogeneous batching of LoRA adapters.
    • This approach results in significant cost savings compared to dedicated deployments or fine-tuning via OpenAI’s API.

Deploying Your Fine-Tuned Model: Practical Considerations

Merging Adapters: Pros and Cons

  • Merging:
    • Pros: Better baseline performance by eliminating the overhead of processing LoRA layers at runtime.
    • Cons: Limits flexibility in serving multiple fine-tunes, incompatibility with certain adapters (e.g., DORA, speculative decoding), potential quantization challenges, increased disk space.
  • Not Merging:
    • Pros: Allows serving multiple fine-tuned models and the base model on a single deployment, facilitates A/B testing and rapid iteration, compatibility with various adapter types.
    • Cons: Potential performance overhead due to processing LoRA layers at runtime.
  • Decision: Whether to merge depends on individual needs and constraints.

Quantization for Training and Inference

  • Challenge: Models trained with QLoRA (quantized) often show performance degradation when served using FP16 (full precision). Serving with QLoRA is slow.
  • Solution: Dequantize the QLoRA weights to FP16 for inference. This maintains numerical equivalence with the quantized weights while enabling faster inference.

Performance Tuning

Gathering Requirements

  • Factors: Queries per second, input/output token distribution, number of adapters.
  • Impact: These factors influence ideal batch size, target throughput, and latency.
  • SLOs: Define service level objectives for peak throughput, latency, and cost.

Deployment Requirements

  • VRAM Estimation: Allocate at least 1.5x the model weights for serving, considering activations, adapters, and KV cache.

Key Questions for Choosing Deployment Options

  • VRAM needs
  • Requests per second
  • Request distribution
  • Maximum acceptable latency
  • Willingness to sacrifice quality for cost
  • Number of tasks

Serverless vs. Dedicated Deployment

  • Serverless: Suitable for low to medium, uniformly distributed requests with latency tolerance on the order of seconds.
  • Dedicated: More appropriate for high, spiky request volumes, batch processing, or when strict latency and throughput SLOs are critical.

Fine-Tuning for Throughput

  • Shifting the Paradigm: Move beyond focusing solely on quality and leverage fine-tuning for performance improvements.

Addressing Performance Differences:

  • Fine-tuned models with adapters often show slower throughput compared to base models.

Speculative Decoding - The Medusa Approach:

Combining Quality and Performance with Lookahead LoRA:

  • Fine-tune adapters to predict multiple tokens ahead (lookahead) while maintaining task-specific accuracy.
  • This approach has shown significant throughput improvements (2-3x) compared to base models and standard LoRA adapters.

Demonstration

  • A live demo showcased the throughput differences between a base Medusa model, a fine-tuned Medusa model, and a model using lookahead LoRA for a code generation task.
  • The lookahead LoRA model achieved significantly higher throughput, highlighting the potential of this technique.

Batch vs Real Time and Modal

Throughput vs. Latency

  • Defining “Slow”: A system can be slow due to low throughput (handling few requests per unit time) or high latency (taking long to process a single request).
  • Throughput: Measured in requests completed per unit time.
    • Relevant for batch tasks like recommendation systems, evaluations, and CI/CD.
    • Constraints often stem from upstream/downstream systems.
  • Latency: Measured in time taken to complete a single request.
    • Crucial for real-time applications like chatbots, copilots, and guardrails.
    • Human perception is the primary constraint (target ~200ms total system latency).
  • Cost: The hidden factor influencing throughput and latency. More resources generally improve both but at a cost.

Latency Lags Throughput

  • Paper: Latency Lags Bandwidth
  • Latency Improvements Are Hard: Historically, improving bandwidth has been easier than reducing latency due to fundamental engineering and physical limitations (e.g., speed of light).
    • GPUs Exemplify This: GPUs are optimized for throughput with large areas dedicated to processing, while CPUs prioritize latency with a focus on caching and control flow.

GPUs are inherently throughput-oriented.

  • Textbook: Programming Massively Parallel Processors: A Hands-on Approach
  • GPUs have much larger areas dedicated to processing units (ALUs) compared to CPUs, which prioritize caching and control flow for lower latency.
  • This design difference allows GPUs to achieve significantly higher memory throughput, making them suitable for high-throughput tasks like LLM inference.

LLM Inference Challenges

  • Throughput: Easily scalable by increasing batch size (with some latency tradeoffs).
  • Latency: Much harder to optimize.
    • Techniques for Improvement: Quantization, model distillation, truncation, faster hardware, and highly optimized software (e.g., CUDA kernels).
    • Extreme Latency Optimization: Running models entirely on cache memory (SRAM), as done by Groq’s LPU, significantly reduces latency but may impact throughput per dollar.

Costs are high but falling.

  • Good News: LLM inference costs are decreasing faster than Moore’s law due to hardware, algorithmic, and R&D advancements.
    • Cognitive Capability for Fixed Price: $20/megatoken now buys GPT-4 level output, significantly higher capability than what was possible a year ago.
    • Falling Costs for Fixed Capability: Achieving chatGPT-level performance is now possible at a fraction of the cost compared to two years ago.
  • Implication: Holding onto a fixed budget and waiting for capabilities to improve is a viable strategy.

Deploying LLMs on Modal

  • Modal’s Value Proposition:
    • High Throughput: Easy scaling to hundreds of A100s for large-scale fine-tuning and batch inference.
    • Manageable Latency: Balancing latency and cost is achievable for models up to 13B parameters, suitable for certain latency-sensitive applications.
    • Competitive Cost: Offers competitive GPU pricing with potential for high utilization savings, especially for spiky workloads.
  • Beyond GPUs: Modal provides a complete serverless runtime with storage, compute, and web service capabilities, enabling tasks beyond just LLM inference.

Demos

  • Code: https://modal.com/docs/examples
  • Abliteration LLM: Demonstrated an LLM modified to remove certain responses (e.g., refusing harmful requests). This demo encountered technical difficulties.
  • Batch Inference with TRT LLM: Showcased running batch inference on Llama-3 8B using TRT LLM, achieving high throughput.
  • Hot Reloading Development Server: Demonstrated the ability to make code changes locally and have them automatically redeployed on Modal.
  • OpenAI Compatible Endpoint: Showcased running an OpenAI compatible endpoint on Modal using vLLM, allowing integration with tools like Instructor.

Q&A Session

AWQ in Honeycomb Example

  • Question: Clarification sought on the mention of AWQ in the Honeycomb example.
  • Answer: AWQ (quantization technique) is highlighted as a tool for model quantization, compatible and easily integrable with vLLM. The speaker shares their preference for using default or documented settings for quantization without delving into extensive customization.

Pricing Fine-Tuning Projects for Enterprises

  • Question: Advice sought on determining pricing for enterprise fine-tuning projects.
  • Answer: Advises against hourly rates and recommends a value-based approach, which involves:
    • Understanding the client’s problem and its importance.
    • Identifying key metrics the client aims to improve.
    • Collaborating to determine the project’s value to the client.
      • If the client does not know, should probably not take the project
    • Proposing a reasonable fraction of that value as the price.

GPU Optimization in Modal with vLLM’s Async Engine

  • Question: Inquiry about optimizing GPU usage in Modal when using vLLM’s asynchronous engine and limiting concurrent requests instead of batch size.
  • Answer: Charles Frye emphasizes the importance of measuring actual GPU behavior:
    • CUDA Kernel Utilization: Monitor using tools like NVIDIA SMI to understand GPU activity.
    • FLOPs Utilization: Measure and compare the achieved floating-point operations per second against the system’s theoretical maximum.
    • Wattage Consumption: Observe GPU power draw as a proxy for actual workload and potential bottlenecks.

Hiding API Endpoints in Model-Serving Web Apps

  • Question: Strategies sought for concealing API endpoints in a web application to prevent exposure through browser inspection tools.
  • Answer:
    • Proxy Server: Routing requests through a proxy to mask internal endpoints and implement protections.
    • Accepting Limitations: Recognizing that completely hiding data flow from the client-side is challenging.

Impact of Input Prompt Size on Speed

  • Question: Clarification sought on how reducing input prompt size affects processing speed, given that the entire prompt is read at once.
  • Answer:
    • Prefill Impact: Smaller prompts reduce the initial encoding time (prefill), which can be significant for very large inputs.
    • Attention Calculation: Shorter sequences lead to faster attention calculations due to the quadratic complexity of attention mechanisms.
    • Practical Considerations: The impact might be negligible for moderately sized prompts but becomes increasingly relevant for very large inputs like books or lengthy PDFs.

Resources for Learning Continuous Batching

Request Caching Layer in Hugging Face and Modal

  • Question: Inquiry about the availability of a request caching layer in Hugging Face and Modal.
  • Answer:
    • KV Caching: The speakers clarify that some frameworks, like TRT-LLM and vLLM, offer KV caching, which can improve performance for requests sharing similar prefixes or chat history.
    • Higher-Level Caching: Expanding on the concept, they discuss the possibility of centralized KV cache databases and even caching complete requests and responses for deterministic scenarios.
    • Replicate’s Approach: Joe Hoover states that Replicate doesn’t currently provide explicit features for request caching but acknowledges it as a potential future consideration.
About Me:
  • I’m Christian Mills, a deep learning consultant specializing in computer vision and practical AI implementations.
  • I help clients leverage cutting-edge AI technologies to solve real-world problems.
  • Learn more about me or reach out via email at [email protected] to discuss your project.