`ctl bench` has always been able to work out what one replica can serve — it
ramps concurrency until the SLO breaks and reports the last level that held.
It printed that and nothing kept it, so the one number saying what a replica is
worth lived in whoever ran it's scrollback. Everything downstream then had to
guess: admission applies a single global default for healthy queue depth, and
sizing a model against real demand had nothing to size against.
`ctl bench --save` records it; `ctl capacity` reads it back.
Keyed by model and profile. Capacity belongs to the hardware and the engine
arguments as much as to the weights, so the same model on CPU and on an H100
are two numbers, and one key would overwrite the other on every run.
The profile is looked up from the replica rather than asked for, because the
control plane already knows which profile answers on which endpoint and a
measurement filed under the wrong one is worse than none. A target that is not
a replica — the gateway, usually — is refused with that said: benchmarking the
whole path is worth doing and says nothing about the hardware.
The conclusion is stored, not the ramp. Every level and its latencies are worth
reading once while judging whether the run was sound; keeping them would grow
without bound as a model is re-benchmarked.
Re-measuring replaces. A second run is a better answer to the same question,
not another data point, and keeping both would leave a reader choosing between
numbers with no basis for the choice.
The SLO and the date are stored with it. Capacity means nothing without the
target it was measured against, and hardware and engine builds change — a
measurement is an observation with a date on it, not a fact about the model.
A failed save is reported and not fatal: the run has already cost the GPU time.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The count is scaling.min, and until now the only way to change it was to edit
server.yaml on the host and restart — or, for a model added at runtime, to
remove it and add it back, which means having its whole definition to hand.
`llmgw ctl scale <model> --min N` instead. Only the scaling block moves:
everything else is read back from what was stored and written out untouched, so
changing a number cannot quietly become a redefinition.
The catalog is rebuilt and validated before anything is written, as in Add. A
max below a min is refused with the stored definition untouched — persisting a
rejected change would come back on the next restart as a catalog that does not
build.
The answer reports the scaling in force rather than the request. The catalog
fills in a max that was left out, and a caller echoing its own request would
print a number the cluster is not using.
A model declared in configuration is refused, for the reason Remove already
refuses one: the YAML is read on every start, so the new count would hold until
the next restart and then silently revert. A cluster disagreeing with its own
config file is worse than an error saying where to edit.
The help says what --max does, because it is not what it looks like: a model
with a minimum runs exactly that many and nothing scales it up under load, and
an on-demand model loads one replica however high its max.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The last piece of not restarting a control plane to try a model:
llmgw ctl model add -f qwen-coder-32b.yaml
llmgw ctl model remove qwen-coder-32b
The file is the same YAML a model takes in server.yaml, read by the same
koanf parser through the same tags, so an entry moves between the two by
being copied and a field that works in one cannot silently mean nothing in
the other.
Wired only when there is a store. A control plane without one says so
rather than accepting a model that vanishes on the next restart, which is
the kind of success that wastes an afternoon. At startup the catalog is
rebuilt from configuration plus what was stored, so models added before a
restart are still there after it — without that the whole feature would be
a slower way to lose work.
Every failure adding a model is the definition being wrong — a collision, a
missing fallback, a profile that cannot be placed — so they are 400s. A 500
would send someone to the server's logs for a mistake in their own file.
The actor comes from the caller and is kept with the row, so a catalog that
has grown over months can say where each entry came from.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Adding a model was an operator procedure with downtime: edit a file on the
control plane, restart it, wait out the settling window, watch replicas
churn while adoption catches up. I did that eight times in a day, and one
of the restarts cost two minutes of outage while stalled replicas timed
out. None of it was necessary. The reconciler already compares desired
against actual on every pass, so a new catalog is simply a different
desired.
A Catalog stays immutable — New is the only way to build one and it refuses
an invalid one — and what changes is which immutable catalog is current.
Readers take the pointer and finish their operation against it, so a swap
mid-request is invisible rather than a race. The router is told rather than
asked, the same shape as the endpoint list and for the same reason: a push
happens once per change, a pull would happen once per request.
The router still seeds from configuration as well as being pushed to. A
router with a static endpoint list and no control plane is a supported mode
and has nothing to push it a catalog; without seeding it would resolve no
model at all.
Which turned up a bug that was latent while catalogs were fixed.
reconcileModel only ever visits models that are in the catalog, so a
replica whose model had been removed was visited by nothing: it kept its
GPUs, kept counting, and kept running an engine for a name no client could
ask for. The endpoint publisher skipped such a replica with the comment
"the reconciler will tear it down", which was not true. It is now, and the
comment says what actually happens instead of what was assumed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
e05d5d4 was pushed with this suite failing. The full run was in front of me
and I printed "green" from an unconditional echo instead of reading it,
which is worse than not having looked.
The failure was real and not a surprise: explain-placement had no
rejections to show, because placement had not run yet. These tests build
the whole fleet before anything starts, which is exactly the state settling
waits for, so they opt out rather than simulate a startup they are not
about.
A negative SettleFor now means off, distinct from zero meaning "use the
default" — a test that wants no window must be able to say so without that
reading as "unset".
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
ctl talks to a management API on the admin listener, not the client-facing one.
The two have different audiences: one serves inference to whoever holds an API
key, the other lets a caller cordon nodes and read the cluster's shape.
- nodes surfaces unhealthy GPUs and why they are excluded. That is usually the
answer when a node looks idle but nothing will schedule onto it, and it was
invisible before.
- explain-placement prints every candidate considered and why it was rejected.
- replicas shows the shards a replica is made of, with per-shard errors.
- cordon, uncordon and drain are one endpoint with different targets, because
the difference between cordon and drain is exactly what an operator needs to
be sure of before running either.
Draining had to be fixed first to make ctl drain worth having. A drained replica
was stopped on the next pass, which cuts in-flight requests — the thing draining
exists to avoid. Now a node marked Draining has its replicas drained, the model
falls below its desired count, a replacement is placed elsewhere, and the
original is stopped only once the replacement is serving. A grace period bounds
it, because draining the only node that can host a model would otherwise never
finish and the node could never be taken out of service.
Verified against a two-node cluster of real binaries: draining moved a replica
to the surviving node and traffic kept returning 200 throughout.
ctl logs is deliberately absent. It needs a request/response pair the agent
protocol does not have, and the failure path already ships an engine log tail
with every status report — so the case that matters most is covered, and
reading a healthy shard's output on demand is not worth a protocol change yet.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
ilkerandClaude Opus 5