Posts: 137
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2026
Reputation:
0
This keeps coming up in conversation so I figured I'd start a thread.
One thing I keep noticing is that people underestimate tool calling until they actually try to run this stuff for more than one afternoon.
Curious whether that lines up with what other people are seeing.
throughput matters, but tail latency matters too
Posts: 45
Threads: 2
Joined: Aug 2026
Reputation:
0
What worked for me was pretty simple. If you're on MLX, I'd confirm the version first and then reduce variables until the behavior is obvious.
Posts: 83
Threads: 6
Joined: Sep 2026
Reputation:
0
I'd approach it in a boring order. If you're on PyTorch, I'd confirm the version first and then reduce variables until the behavior is obvious. A lot of these threads end up being one bad config plus a pile of conclusions drawn from it.
Posts: 76
Threads: 12
Joined: Aug 2026
Reputation:
0
Appreciate the detail. That matches what I saw on B200. Worth rechecking your defaults though, because one bad assumption can make the rest of the thread look confusing.
I'm happy to test one more variant if you want a second data point.
Posts: 22
Threads: 3
Joined: Sep 2026
Reputation:
0
I'd approach it in a boring order. Before rebuilding anything, I'd test one clean baseline with Qwen and compare from there. Once you know the plain path works, then add the faster path back in piece by piece.
still benchmarking everything
Posts: 45
Threads: 6
Joined: Aug 2026
Reputation:
0
Can you fill in a bit more context? Is this local-only or are you routing anything externally?
mostly local
Posts: 29
Threads: 5
Joined: Sep 2026
Reputation:
0
I tested this tonight. I couldn't reproduce the slowdown until I pushed context much higher.
Posts: 26
Threads: 4
Joined: Sep 2026
Reputation:
0
following this because I'm in the same boat.
curious and caffeinated