Ilker ManapandClaude Opus 5
8fd4c1392d
CI / test (push) Successful in 1m46s
Placement compared a profile's memory requirement against the node's total, so a 31 GB machine accepted two models that each declared 15: each was asked about on its own, and nothing recorded that the first had claimed anything. GPUs were never handed out twice this way — they are tracked as claimed indices — and memory was, because the allocation carried no figure for it. An allocation records what its profile asked for, and eligibility subtracts what a node already owes before comparing. The rejection names both numbers, because "needs 15" beside a 31 GB machine reads as a bug in the scheduler rather than a full node. Declared, not measured. A profile that says 15 is treated as holding 15 whether the process has touched that much yet or not — the alternative is deciding against what a model has grown into so far, which is wrong every time one is still loading. Zero is nobody said, and claims nothing. Counting it would let one undeclared model make a whole node look full. Adoption after a restart re-reads the figure from the catalog rather than from the agent: what a profile asked for is not something a running process reports, and a control plane that forgot every claim on restart would put a second large model onto a node already full of the first. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>