Discovery reports a card in MIG mode as its instances instead of the whole
card, on both paths: nvidia-smi (-L names them, -q -x gives their memory,
ids and processes) and NVML (GetMigMode, GetMaxMigDeviceCount,
GetMigDeviceHandleByIndex, behind an interface so it is tested with a fake).
Each instance has its MIG UUID, its own memory, and a class from the card's
and the profile: a100-80g-mig-3g.40gb. Placement numbers instances
1000 + 100 x card + instance and every view shows them as card/migN.
A replica on MIG runs on exactly one instance: a process opens one MIG
device and instances have no NVLink between them, so tp, pp, gpus or nodes
above one on a MIG class are refused in catalog validation and again in
placement, and the planner offers one instance or none. The agent gives
the engine CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES=MIG-<uuid> (no Vulkan device variable on
MIG). Memory and processes are per instance; heat, power and wear the
card's; utilisation is left out rather than reported as zero. A card in MIG
mode with nothing carved stays out of placement with the reason, and
llmgw doctor reports each card's mode and instances and warns of the states
in which nothing can run. ctl nodes, ctl status, the console and the plan
count devices by class. docs/install.md has a MIG section.
Written against fakes of nvidia-smi and NVML output; not yet run on MIG
hardware.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Running the planner against the real fleet produced twenty-six rows for a
32B, of which thirteen were duplicates: two fabrics of identical cards, and
every single-node fit listed once for each.
A replica on one node does not span anything, so which fabric its node
happens to be attached to changes nothing about whether the model fits. A
multi-node fit is still listed per fabric, because there the fabric is the
constraint and which one has room is the thing the operator needs told.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
llmgw ctl model plan Qwen/Qwen2.5-Coder-32B-Instruct
The arithmetic this replaces is the last thing between having GPUs and
serving a model on them. Choosing tp, gpu_class and a context that will
actually fit means knowing the layer count, the KV head count, what the
weights weigh at a chosen quantisation and how much of a card the runtime
keeps — and getting it wrong is not an error message, it is an
out-of-memory twenty minutes into a load. I computed those by hand for
every model on this cluster.
Both halves are read rather than retyped: the architecture from the model's
own config.json and parameter count, the hardware from the running fleet.
Attention heads in place of KV heads is the classic slip and is worth a
factor of five on a model with grouped-query attention, so it is not a
number anyone should be entering.
Every candidate is listed, not one answer. With cards to spare you want the
full-precision fit; with one card free you want to know a quantised one
exists. Choosing between those is not the planner's job.
The tests are calibrated against files actually downloaded here — llama.cpp
reported 14.62 GiB and 8.37 GiB for the 14B at q8_0 and q4_K_M, and the
model reproduces both — and they caught two errors in my own arithmetic.
The overhead was charged per rank from the whole model's weights rather
than each rank's share, and it reserved a tenth of a card that
usableFraction had already reserved. Between them, Llama-3.3-70B at bf16
across two 80 GB cards came out as not fitting, which is a configuration
people run every day. Slack reserved in two places, each unaware of the
other, reads as caution and behaves as a bug.
Pools are grouped by class and fabric together, because a replica may never
span two fabrics: eight free cards split across two of them are not eight
cards for a model that needs eight, and merging them would plan something
that starts, passes its health checks and hangs on its first all-reduce.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
