Storage will be different at every installation — Lustre, NFS over RDMA, an
image exported with SRP or NVMe-oF, local NVMe, an rsync — so llmgw observes
it rather than managing it. An agent told which directories to look in
reports what it can see; how the files got there is nobody's business here,
and a node told nothing reports nothing and behaves exactly as every node
did before this existed.
That fact buys two things. Placement prefers a node that already holds the
model over one that must first move tens of gigabytes, as a preference and
never a filter: fetching them is a valid answer, and refusing to place would
turn a slow start into no start at all. And ctl status shows what each
fabric holds.
Per fabric because fabrics are not connected to one another. Weights in
ib-a are not weights in ib-b — the only path between them is the management
network — so a model seeded into one fabric leaves the rest of the cluster
unable to serve it without a slow copy, and nothing said so before now. One
shared filer counts the same as twenty local copies, because "can this
fabric serve it" is the question being asked.
Three distinctions the tests hold to, because each is a way to get this
quietly wrong. A node that was never asked to look must rank with one that
looked and has nothing, or enabling the feature on a single node would
drain every other. An empty directory is not weights, because a
half-finished download looks exactly like one and would send placement to a
node whose engine then fails to load. And local storage is never mistaken
for shared: a filer read as local costs an unnecessary copy, while local
read as shared would have the cluster believe a model is everywhere when it
is on one node.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
