Inserted between quota checks and scheduling: admission answers when a request
may proceed, the scheduler still answers where it goes. Keeping them apart is
the point — an engine queue is FIFO and knows nothing about tenants, so once a
batch job is in it, no endpoint selection rescues the request behind it.
- saturation detector: one number per pool, the worse of queue depth and KV
occupancy, since either alone misleads.
- priority bands with per-band saturation ceilings, so the cluster degrades from
the bottom up.
- tenant round-robin within a band: one caller sending a thousand requests takes
one slot in the rotation, not a thousand.
- bounded queues with capacity (503) and TTL (504); cancelled requests leave the
queue instead of holding capacity.
- metrics for queue depth, wait time, rejections and pool saturation.
Exit criterion, measured in test/e2e: with 500 concurrent bronze requests
running continuously, interactive p99 in the platinum band stays at 1.04-1.24x
idle against a 1.5x budget. With admission off the same load pushes it to
55-60x. Both directions are asserted, so the test fails if admission regresses
and also if the load generator stops being a real load.
Two lags had to be closed, and they needed different answers. Engine metrics are
scraped and lag an interval; router inflight does not, but it counts running
requests, and treating those as queue makes a healthy engine look overloaded
every interval. What is actually queued is inflight minus batch capacity, and
capacity is not in the metric contract, so it is learned as the high-water mark
of observed running. Separately, between admission granting a request and the
router dispatching it the request is invisible everywhere, so a simultaneous
burst passed the check en masse; the controller now counts its own outstanding
leases against dispatched inflight.
One plan correction: a saturation ceiling of 1.0 was documented as "never held
back". It is not — it means "flow up to the healthy limit". A band that must
never wait needs a ceiling above 1. Plan §7.2.2 updated.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
llmgw server is real now. It fronts a static set of engine replicas with an
OpenAI-compatible API, scoring endpoints through the pipeline added in the
previous commit.
- proxy: SSE relayed event by event with a flush after each, cancellation
propagated upstream, and separate deadlines for dial, headers, first token,
inter-token idle and total. The idle watchdog is what distinguishes a wedged
engine from a slow one.
- router: dispatch with retry and model fallback. Retry only happens while
nothing has reached the client; after that, splicing two responses together
would be worse than the short stream the client already sees.
- config: YAML via koanf overlaid on defaults, with LLMGW_ env overrides.
Validation rejects duplicate endpoint ids and aliases that shadow a model,
because both misroute silently at request time rather than failing loudly.
- metrics: requests, duration, TTFT, tokens, plus per-scorer values and
per-filter drops on a separate admin listener with health and pprof.
Phase 1 exit criterion, measured in test/e2e: 1000 concurrent streams across
3 sim-engines complete at ~6800 req/s; every client disconnect frees the KV
blocks on every engine; router overhead p99 is about 0.9 ms against the plan's
2 ms budget.
The handlers live in internal/router rather than an internal/router/openai
package as the plan's tree sketched: they need the dispatch loop, and splitting
them apart would have meant an interface with exactly one implementation. Plan
§4 updated to match.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
ilkerandClaude Opus 5