Live data from Hacker News

How Meta trains large language models at scale

engineering.fb.com

141–150 of 213 posts

Re: How Meta trains large language models at scale

#141
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes that you can linearly scale up the number of TPUs to get equal performance to Nvidia cards for less cost. Like most things distributed, this is unlikely to be the case.

This is absolutely the case, TPUs scale very well: https://github.com/google/maxtext .

The repo mentiones a Karpathy tweet from Jan 2023. Andrej has recently created llm.c and the same model trained about 32x faster on the same NVidia hardware mentioned in the tweet. I dont think the perfomance estimate that the repo used (based on that early tweet) was accurate for the performance of the NVidia hardware itself.

Re: How Meta trains large language models at scale

#142

OK this was a bit funny: Top HW failure modes: * GPU falling off the bus I honestly thought "do they mean GPUs falling off a bus entering the data center" and then realized its actually the connectivity, as they mention in the next line GPUs falling off: In this case, GPUs are not detected by the host on PCIe.

I was imagining that some sys admin has to walk to the server, take out the GPU, blow against the PCI-E pins like a game cartridge, and put it back to try again.

Re: How Meta trains large language models at scale

#143

These seem classic challenges with running distributed systems loads that are not specific to training LLMs. Anyone of the super computers listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOP500 suffers from the same issues. Think about it. While the national labs use these systems to model serious stuff -such as climate or nuclear weapons- Meta uses them to train LLMs. What a joke, honestly!

A lot of serious things look like a toy or a joke at first.

[dead]

Re: How Meta trains large language models at scale

#144
post #84

Would be nice to read how do they collect/prepare data for training. Which data sources? How much of Meta users data (fb, instagram… etc). How do they sanitize PII?

> How do they sanitize PII? I can't comment on how things like faces get used, but in my experience, PII at Meta is inaccessible by default. Unless you're impersonating a user on the platform (to access what PII they can see), you have to request special access for logs or database columns that contain so much as user IDs, otherwise the data simply won't show up when you query for it. This is baked into the infrastru…

For a convenient definition of PII. Isn’t everything a user does in aggregate PII?

Re: How Meta trains large language models at scale

#145
post #45

How will Meta leverage LLMs at scale to drive revenue? It's not clear.

I think the nearish term plan is chatbot customer assistants on whatsapp. Doesnt seem like theyre that close to releasing them but who knows

At the end of the day, everything eventually comes down to chatbots

Re: How Meta trains large language models at scale

#146
post #4

Posts like this underscore why the smart money is betting on Google as the long term AI winner. Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, etc. are trying to address problems with consumer video cards and spending billions to try and out bid each other to win Nvidia's favor - while Google is on their 6th generation of custom silicon. Literally the only thing that can stop Google now is the fact they keep bringing Microsoft and Oracle…

I think it's likely Nvidia's GPU's, many of which are $50,000+ for a single unit, far surpass Google's custom silicon otherwise why wouldn't Google be selling shovels like Nvidia? If Google had a better chip, or even a chip that was close, they would sell it to anyone and everyone. From a quick search I can see Google's custom chips are 15x to 30x slower to train AI compared to Nvidia's current latest gen AI specific…

Intel, AMD and others also have chips for training that perform close to or sometimes better than Nvidia's. These are already in the market. Two problems: the CUDA moat, and, "noone gets fired for buying green".

Re: How Meta trains large language models at scale

#147
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Google was building custom HPC hardware 5-8 years before Nvidia decided to expand outside the consumer and "workstation" markets.

Nvidia acquired Mellanox who know far more about custom HPC hardware than Google.

Mellanox and friends not being able to build fast enough switching gear at a reasonable price point was what got Google into the hardware game in the first place ;)

Re: How Meta trains large language models at scale

#148
post #4

Posts like this underscore why the smart money is betting on Google as the long term AI winner. Meta, Microsoft, OpenAI, etc. are trying to address problems with consumer video cards and spending billions to try and out bid each other to win Nvidia's favor - while Google is on their 6th generation of custom silicon. Literally the only thing that can stop Google now is the fact they keep bringing Microsoft and Oracle…

I think it's likely Nvidia's GPU's, many of which are $50,000+ for a single unit, far surpass Google's custom silicon otherwise why wouldn't Google be selling shovels like Nvidia? If Google had a better chip, or even a chip that was close, they would sell it to anyone and everyone. From a quick search I can see Google's custom chips are 15x to 30x slower to train AI compared to Nvidia's current latest gen AI specific…

Is that why apple sell there chips to everyone??

Re: How Meta trains large language models at scale

#149
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, ops comment makes it seem like they are building racks of RTX 4090s, when this isn’t remotely true. Tensor Core performance is far different on the data center class devices vs consumer ones.

They are building racks of 4090s. Nobody can get H100s in any reasonable volume. Hell, Microsoft is renting GPUs from Oracle Cloud to get enough capacity to run Bing.

Who is "they"?

RTX 4090s are terrible for this task. Off the top of my head:

- VRAM (obviously). Isn't that where the racks come in? Not really. Nvidia famously removed something as basic as NVLink between two cards from the 3090 to the 4090. When it comes to bandwidth between cards (crucial) even 16 lanes of PCIe 4 isn't fast enough. When you start talking about "racks" unless you're running on server grade CPUs (contributing to cost vs power vs density vs perf) you're not going to have nearly enough PCIe lanes to get very far. Even P2P over PCIe requires a hack geohot developed[0] and needless to say that's umm, less than confidence inspiring for what you would lay out ($$$) in terms of hardware, space, cooling, and power. The lack of ECC is a real issue as well.

- Form factor. Remember PCIe lanes, etc? The RTX 4090 is a ~three slot beast when using air cooling and needless to say rigging up something like the dual slot water cooled 4090s I have at scale is another challenge altogether... How are people going to wire this up? What do the enclosures/racks/etc look like? This isn't like crypto mining where cheap 1x PCIe risers can be used without dramatically limiting performance to the point of useless.

- Performance. As grandparent comment noted 4090s are not designed for this workload. In typical usage for training I see them as 10-20% faster than an RTX 3090 at much higher cost. Compared to my H100 with SXM it's ridiculously slow.

- Market segmentation. Nvidia really knows what they're doing here... There are all kinds of limitations you run into with how the hardware is designed (like Tensor Core performance for inference especially).

- Issues at scale. Look at the Meta post - their biggest issues are things that are dramatically worse with consumer cards like the RTX 4090, especially when you're running with some kind of goofy PCIe cabling issue (like risers).

- Power. No matter what power limiting you employ an RTX 4090 is pretty bad for power/performance ratio. The card isn't fundamentally designed for these tasks - it's designed to run screaming for a few hours a day so gamers can push as many FPS at high res as possible. Training, inference, etc is a different beast and the performance vs power ratio for these tasks is terrible compared to A/H100. Now lets talk about the physical cabling, PSU, etc issues. Yes miners had hacks for this as well but it's yet another issue.

- Fan design. There isn't a single "blower" style RTX 4090 on the market. There was a dual-slot RTX 3090 at one point (I have a bunch of them) but Nvidia made Gigabyte pull them from the market because people were using them for this. Figuring out some kind of air-cooling setup with the fan and cooling design of the available RTX 4090 cards sounds like a complete nightmare...

- Licensing issues. Again, laying out the $$$ for this with a deployment that almost certainly violates the Nvidia EULA is a risky investment.

Three RTX 4090s (at 9 slots) to get "only" 72GB of VRAM, talking over PCIe, using 48 PCIe lanes, multi-node over sloooow ethernet (hitting CPU - slower and yet more power), using what likely ends up at ~900 watts (power limited) for significantly reduced throughput and less VRAM is ridiculous. Scaling the kind of ethernet you need for this (100 gig) comes at a very high per-port cost and due to all of these issues the performance would still be terrible.

I'm all for creativity but deploying "racks" of 4090s for AI tasks is (frankly) flat-out stupid.

[0] - https://github.com/tinygrad/open-gpu-kernel-modules

Post reply on HN