Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
speculative decoding in llama.cpp
#1
Did a bit of testing and thought I'd post the result here.

After a few runs on GB200, I ended up with decent performance, but the setup only really made sense once I adjusted around MoE serving.

Curious if anyone else landed in the same place.

My use case is pretty ordinary: local chat, some document work, and occasional batch jobs.
2x3090 • llama.cpp • too much VRAM is still not enough
Reply
#2
I don't think that's the whole story. I wouldn't optimize around that first. On my side the bigger swing came from the runtime and not the model. Could be a workload difference, but I wouldn't generalize too fast from one setup.

There are a few different conversations hiding inside this thread, so being explicit about the goal helps.
Reply
#3
Quote:I don't think that's the whole story. I wouldn't optimize around that first. On my side the bigger swing came from the runtime and not the model. Coul

Ran a quick check on my box. I couldn't reproduce the slowdown until I pushed context much higher. The surprise was that memory pressure showed up before throughput collapsed.
Reply
#4
I don't think that's the whole story. I get why that seems right, but on dual 3090 the bottleneck felt elsewhere.
Reply
#5
A couple things I'd check first. On dual 3090, the easiest win is often to back off the aggressive settings and see whether the problem survives.
Reply
#6
worth checking the driver first.
Reply
#7
same here on my side.
Reply
#8
I'd approach it in a boring order. Start by verifying the driver/runtime combo, then test with a smaller prompt, then look at reranking. Not glamorous advice, but repeatable baselines save a lot of time.
Reply
#9
Quote:I hit almost the same issue last night.

subscribed, curious where this lands.
Reply
#10
I tested this tonight. The issue went away once I changed one setting and restarted the stack cleanly.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)