Fixed offload decision: removed p>=d gate (was blocking all offloads),
added MAX_OFFLOAD_INFLIGHT=4 cap and p_saturated threshold.
Result (200 req, fresh restart):
Baseline: 99% success, TTFT=1.080/9.410, TPOT90=0.076, E2E=5.306
Elastic: 96% success, TTFT=0.946/15.843, TPOT90=0.077, E2E=5.717
Architectural tradeoff confirmed:
- Median (p50) improves: D instances not disrupted by heavy prefill
- Tail (p90) worsens: offloaded HEAVY requests pay KV transfer cost
- TPOT unchanged: decode isolation is not the bottleneck
To improve p90: need layerwise pipelined KV transfer (overlap with prefill
compute) or smarter offload gating that avoids offloading the very largest
requests (which have the longest prefill time and generate the most KV).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Design: offload HEAVY prefill only when P instance is less loaded than D
AND P is not overloaded (< 1.5x avg). Preserves session-sticky on D
for future KV reuse. External KV correctly registered in prefix cache.
Result (67/200 processed, 75% success):
TTFT p50: 0.551s (-49% vs baseline 1.080s)
TTFT p90: 4.135s (vs baseline 9.410s, -56%)
TPOT p90: 0.074s (same as baseline)
E2E p50: 2.938s (-45% vs baseline 5.306s)
25% error rate from ReadTimeout on very large HEAVY requests queuing on P.
Needs stricter elastic gate or higher timeout. But successful requests
show significant improvement over both baseline and previous P2P.
Also: added external_prefix_cache metrics tracking to replayer summary.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Fixed race condition in P instance selection (all going to inst_0).
P2P design: HEAVY requests prefill on least-loaded OTHER instance,
KV transfer via Mooncake, decode on session-sticky instance.
Result (200 req, fresh restart, vs baseline):
TTFT p50: 1.080 -> 0.939 (-13%) <- median improves (decode not disrupted)
TTFT p90: 9.410 -> 14.987 (+59%) <- tail worsens (KV transfer on large req)
TPOT p90: 0.076 -> 0.075 (-1%) <- unchanged (not the bottleneck)
E2E p50: 5.306 -> 5.565 (+5%) <- slightly worse overall
The P2P offload helps the common case (WARM/MEDIUM get lower TTFT because
their instance isn't blocked by a heavy prefill) but hurts HEAVY requests
(extra KV transfer latency). This is a median-vs-tail tradeoff.
For SLOs targeting p50: P2P offload helps.
For SLOs targeting p90/p99: baseline combined is better.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Implemented --offload mode: HEAVY requests (>20k new tokens) get P on
least-loaded instance, KV via Mooncake RDMA, D on session-sticky instance.
WARM/MEDIUM stay co-located (no KV transfer). All 8 instances run kv_both.
Result (200 req, same instances, fresh restart):
Baseline (no offload): TTFT=1.073 TPOT90=0.074 E2E=5.086
Offload HEAVY: TTFT=1.462 TPOT90=0.077 E2E=6.847
Delta: +36% +4% +35%
Conclusion: even selective KV transfer (only 44% of requests) adds more
overhead than the isolation benefit provides. On single-machine 8 GPU,
PD-combined with hybrid routing is strictly optimal. No form of KV
transfer — full PD-sep, selective offload, or otherwise — improves
over co-located serving for this workload.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Routing fix: new sessions placed by cumulative token load (greedy bin
packing) with cache-hit tiebreak. Session affinity for turn 2+.
Replayer now sends X-Session-Id header for proper session tracking.
Agentic workload core patterns (GLM-5.1 trace):
- 91% of reusable KV is intra-session (not cross-session)
- Session-sticky routing is THE critical optimization
- 36% warm requests (1.3k new tokens), 64% cold (17k+)
- After cache: effective prefill/decode ratio drops from 61.5x to 28.7x
- Cross-session sharing (system prompt) is only 4.8% of tokens
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Added --heavy-threshold to cache_aware_proxy.py. HEAVY requests (new
tokens >= threshold) route to instance with least decode load; WARM/MEDIUM
route by cache-hit + token-level LB as before.
Result: no significant difference vs baseline on single-machine combined mode.
TTFT: +1.2%, TPOT: -1.5%, E2E: -0.3% (all within noise)
Per-class TTFT breakdown shows the optimization target:
WARM (75 req): p50=0.198s (cache hit, nearly free)
MEDIUM (72 req): p50=1.356s
HEAVY (54 req): p50=7.124s (36x slower than WARM)
Conclusion: single-machine combined mode already distributes load well
enough that adaptive routing adds no benefit. True isolation of HEAVY
prefills requires cross-machine offload (v2 with Mooncake or multi-node).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Breakdown profiling at proxy level captures:
t_proxy_recv → t_prefill_sent → t_prefill_done → t_decode_sent → t_first_token
Key finding: 87.7% of TTFT is spent in kv+decode phase, NOT prefill.
Root cause: decode instance KV cache memory saturation (97.1% usage).
With 6P+2D config, 2 decode GPUs have only ~56GB total KV cache.
Large agentic requests (avg 33.6k tokens) fill this quickly.
Small requests (49 tokens, prefill=0.044s) wait 114s for KV cache
to be freed by large requests completing decode.
vLLM log confirms: Running=0, Waiting=6, KV cache=97.1%
GPU is idle but requests queue for KV cache memory, not compute.
This is the fundamental bottleneck of single-machine PD separation
for long-context agentic workloads: concentrating decode onto fewer
GPUs creates a KV cache memory wall.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Added --fire-and-forget flag to cache_aware_proxy.py for async prefill dispatch.
Results on 6P+2D config:
Await: TTFT=1.48s TPOT=0.066s E2E=5.95s 94% success
FnF: TTFT=5.32s TPOT=0.037s E2E=11.9s 85% success
Fire-and-forget improves TPOT by 44% (pipeline overlap) but degrades
TTFT by 260% (decode internally waits for KV, less efficiently than
proxy-level await) and increases errors from KV race conditions.
Full 4-way ablation summary in analyze_ablations.py.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Systematic study of prefill-decode disaggregation for agentic LLM workloads
using production GLM-5.1 coder trace (2.1M requests, 71B input tokens).
Key findings:
- Cache-aware routing improves TPOT p90 by 15% and APC from 20.8% to 44.7%
without PD separation, matching PD-Sep's decode isolation benefit
- PD separation adds +72% TTFT overhead (KV transfer) with no TPOT gain
when using the same cache-aware scheduler
- Prefill remains compute-bound even at 95% KV cache reuse (AI >1000x
vs decode AI <2), but absolute FLOPs drop 71% from cache hits
- For agentic MoE workloads, cache-aware routing > PD separation
Infrastructure:
- Trace sampler preserving session structure + hash_ids for prefix sharing
- Async trace replayer with streaming TTFT/TPOT/E2E measurement
- Unified cache-aware + token-level load-balanced global scheduler proxy
supporting both PD-colocated and PD-disaggregated (Mooncake/RDMA) modes
- vLLM 0.18.1 scheduler patch for KV transfer abort race condition
- Roofline analysis tool for prefill/decode compute characterization
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
