Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
reranking still worth it for small sets: setup advice
#1
I figured I'd ask here before changing everything.

My current setup is llama.cpp with A6000, and I keep running into tool calling.

If you've tested something similar, what did you keep and what did you stop bothering with?

My use case is pretty ordinary: local chat, some document work, and occasional batch jobs.
Reply
#2
I don't think that's the whole story. The reported numbers can look compelling, but in ordinary usage I didn't see the same benefit. Could be a workload difference, but I wouldn't generalize too fast from one setup.
Reply
#3
I'd approach it in a boring order. If you're on LM Studio, I'd confirm the version first and then reduce variables until the behavior is obvious.
mostly local
Reply
#4
That matches what I was seeing. The pattern around long context has been pretty similar for me.
trying not to rebuild again
Reply
#5
Good point. I don't think your conclusion is far off.
post logs or it didn't happen
Reply
#6
Need a little more detail here. What model, what runtime, and roughly what context size?
Reply
#7
Appreciate the detail. I ended up in about the same place using llama.cpp.
Reply
#8
Quote:Appreciate the detail. I ended up in about the same place using llama.cpp.

Not sure I agree there. I get why that seems right, but on 5090 the bottleneck felt elsewhere. Could be a workload difference, but I wouldn't generalize too fast from one setup.
Reply
#9
My first guess would be this: Before rebuilding anything, I'd test one clean baseline with Mistral and compare from there.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)