test(e2e): add opt-in Qwen3.5-122B CUDA coverage - #274
Conversation
|
Thanks for adding the Qwen3.5 coverage! Do you have any performance data you could share, such as throughput and latency comparisons between the native baseline and AFD 4A4F? |
|
Thanks for asking. I reran this as an equal-hardware comparison using the same eight physical GPUs for both configurations:
The workload was Qwen3.5-122B-A10B in BF16 with vLLM 0.26.0 V1, eager execution, natural routing, temperature=0, random ISL=1024 / OSL=128, 1024 requests, request rate 5/s, and max concurrency 32. The values below are mean ± std over five formal runs after warmup.
All five runs completed 1024/1024 requests successfully. For this workload I would characterize steady-state throughput and decode latency as effectively at parity rather than claiming AFD is faster. The main observed difference is ~9% higher TTFT for AFD on this single-host PCIe topology. I also ran the repository's These numbers are scoped to this checkpoint, workload, and topology rather than a general performance guarantee. |
Signed-off-by: shanyulu <2044173119@qq.com>
9120b20 to
934ccaf
Compare
Purpose
Add repository-owned, opt-in CUDA E2E coverage for
Qwen/Qwen3.5-122B-A10Busing the existing Qwen3.5/3.6 adapter family.Scope
P2pNcclAFDConnectorThe checkpoint declares
num_experts=256andnum_experts_per_tok=8.Test design
The profile is explicitly opt-in and requires:
It never automatically downloads the approximately 234 GiB checkpoint and is
not wired into the default Buildkite PR/merge gate.
Cases:
baseline-eager: native DP4/TP1/EP4 on devices 0,2,4,6afd-eager-4a4f: Attention DP4/TP1 on 0,2,4,6 and FFN DP4/TP1/EP4 on1,3,5,7
Correctness child environments remove benchmark-only forced-routing variables.
Validation
Exact candidate SHA:
934ccaf288eb2d40b0b5241af98df1dce31bee9fHardware:
Software:
Results:
Runtime observation: The AFD run emitted vLLM-internal worker shutdown
escalation and Python
resource_trackerwarnings during process teardown. Therepository E2E runner did not trigger its forced-SIGKILL failure path, exited
successfully, released all ports and GPU allocations, and left no residual
AFD/vLLM processes.
Performance characterization
A reviewer-requested, topology-scoped characterization was run on
934ccaf288eb2d40b0b5241af98df1dce31bee9fusing the same localQwen3.5-122B-A10B BF16 checkpoint.
For resource parity, the primary comparison uses the same eight physical GPUs:
Workload:
All five formal runs on each topology completed 1024/1024 requests
successfully with zero request failures.
For this workload, steady-state throughput and decode latency are effectively
at parity. The main observed difference is approximately 9% higher TTFT for
AFD.
These measurements characterize this single-host PCIe topology, checkpoint,
and workload only and are not a general performance guarantee.
Limitations
Relationship