4 ms·

3USD/hour on the H100 is much more expensive than a reasonable amortized full ownership cost, unless one assumes the GPU is useless within 18 months, which I fi

by pama 2y ago

3USD/hour on the H100 is much more expensive than a reasonable amortized full ownership cost, unless one assumes the GPU is useless within 18 months, which I find a bit dramatic. The MFU can be above 40% and certainly well above the 35% in the estimate, also for small models with plain pytorch and trivial tuning [1] I didnt read the linked paper carefully but I seriously doubt the google team used vocab embedding layers with 2 D V parameters stated in the link, because this would be suboptimal by not tying the weights of the token embedding layer in the decoder architecture (even if they did double the params in these layers, it would not lead to 6 D V compute because the embedding input is indexed). To me these assumptions suggested a somewhat careless attitude towards the cost estimation and so I stopped reading the rest of this analysis carefully. My best guess is that the author is off by a large factor in the upward direction, and a true replication with H100/200 could be about 3x less expensive. [1] if the total cost estimate was relatively low, say less than 10k, then of course the lowest rental price and a random training codebase might make some sense in order to reduce administrative costs; once the cost is in the ballpark of millions of USD, it feels careless to avoid optimizing it further. There exist H100s in firesales or Ebay occasionally, which could reduce the cost even more, but the author already mentions 2USD/gpu/hour for bulk rental compute, which is better than the 3USD/gpu/hour estimate they used in the writeup.

152334H 2y ago
You are correct on true H100 ownership costs being far lower. As I mention in the H100 blurb, the H100 numbers are fungible and I don't mind if you halve them. MFU can certainly be improved beyond 40%, as I mention. But on the point of small models specifically: the paper uses FSDP for all models, and I believe a rigorous experiment should not vary sharding strategy due to numerical differences. FSDP2 on small models will be slow even with compilation. The paper does not tie embeddings, as stated. The readout layer does lead to 6DV because it is a linear layer of D*V, which takes 2x for a forward and 4x for a backward. I would appreciate it if you could limit your comments to factual errors in the post.
- lonk11 2y ago
  I think the commenter was thinking about the input embedding layer, where to get an input token embedding the model does a lookup of the embedding by index, which is constant time. And the blog post author is talking about the output layer where the model has to produce an output prediction for every possible token in the vocabulary. Each output token prediction is a dot-product between the transformer hidden state (D) and the token embedding (D) (whether shared with input or not) for all tokens in the vocabulary (V). That's where the VD comes from. It would be great to clarify this in the blog post to make it more accessible but I understand that there is a tradeoff.
- pama 2y ago
  My bad on the 6 D V estimate; you are correct that if they do a dense decoding (rather than a hierarchical one as google used to do in the old days) the cost is exactly 6 D V. I cannot edit the GP comment and I will absorb the shame of my careless words there. I was put off by the subtitle and initial title of this HN post, though the current title is more appropriate and correct. Even if it's a small model, one could use ddp or FSDP/2 without slowdowns on fast interconnect, which certainly adds to the cost. But if you want to reproduce all the work at the cheapest price point you only need to parallelize to the minimal level for fitting in memory (or rather, the one that maxes the MFU), so everything below 2B parameters runs on a single H100 or single node.
spi 2y ago
Do you have sources for "The MFU can be above 40% and certainly well above the 35 % in the estimate"? Looking at [1], the authors there claim that their improvements were needed to push BERT training beyond 30% MFU, and that the "default" training only reaches 10%. Certainly numbers don't translate exactly, it might well be that with a different stack, model, etc., it is easier to surpass, but 35% doesn't seem like a terribly off estimate to me. Especially so if you are training a whole suite of different models (with different parameters, sizes, etc.) so you can't realistically optimize all of them. It might be that the real estimate is around 40% instead of the 35% used here (frankly it might be that it is 30% or less, for that matter), but I would doubt it's so high as to make the estimates in this blog post terribly off, and I would doubt even more that you can get that "also for small models with plain pytorch and trivial tuning". [1] https://www.databricks.com/blog/mosaicbert https://www.databricks.com/blog/mosaicbert
- pama 2y ago
  Please look at any of the plain pytorch codes by Karpathy that complement llm.c. If you want scalable codes, please look at Megatron-LM.
tedivm 2y ago
When I was at Rad AI we did out the math on rent versus buy, and it was just so absolutely ridiculously obvious that buy was the way to go. Cloud does not make sense for AI training right now, as the overhead costs are considerably higher than simply purchasing a cluster, colocating it at a place like Colovore, and paying for "on hands" support. It's not even close.

by pama 2y ago

152334H 2y ago

You are correct on true H100 ownership costs being far lower. As I mention in the H100 blurb, the H100 numbers are fungible and I don't mind if you halve them. MFU can certainly be improved beyond 40%, as I mention. But on the point of small models specifically: the paper uses FSDP for all models, and I believe a rigorous experiment should not vary sharding strategy due to numerical differences. FSDP2 on small models will be slow even with compilation. The paper does not tie embeddings, as stated. The readout layer does lead to 6DV because it is a linear layer of D*V, which takes 2x for a forward and 4x for a backward. I would appreciate it if you could limit your comments to factual errors in the post.

lonk11 2y ago
I think the commenter was thinking about the input embedding layer, where to get an input token embedding the model does a lookup of the embedding by index, which is constant time. And the blog post author is talking about the output layer where the model has to produce an output prediction for every possible token in the vocabulary. Each output token prediction is a dot-product between the transformer hidden state (D) and the token embedding (D) (whether shared with input or not) for all tokens in the vocabulary (V). That's where the VD comes from. It would be great to clarify this in the blog post to make it more accessible but I understand that there is a tradeoff.
pama 2y ago
My bad on the 6 D V estimate; you are correct that if they do a dense decoding (rather than a hierarchical one as google used to do in the old days) the cost is exactly 6 D V. I cannot edit the GP comment and I will absorb the shame of my careless words there. I was put off by the subtitle and initial title of this HN post, though the current title is more appropriate and correct. Even if it's a small model, one could use ddp or FSDP/2 without slowdowns on fast interconnect, which certainly adds to the cost. But if you want to reproduce all the work at the cheapest price point you only need to parallelize to the minimal level for fitting in memory (or rather, the one that maxes the MFU), so everything below 2B parameters runs on a single H100 or single node.

spi 2y ago

Do you have sources for "The MFU can be above 40% and certainly well above the 35 % in the estimate"? Looking at [1], the authors there claim that their improvements were needed to push BERT training beyond 30% MFU, and that the "default" training only reaches 10%. Certainly numbers don't translate exactly, it might well be that with a different stack, model, etc., it is easier to surpass, but 35% doesn't seem like a terribly off estimate to me. Especially so if you are training a whole suite of different models (with different parameters, sizes, etc.) so you can't realistically optimize all of them. It might be that the real estimate is around 40% instead of the 35% used here (frankly it might be that it is 30% or less, for that matter), but I would doubt it's so high as to make the estimates in this blog post terribly off, and I would doubt even more that you can get that "also for small models with plain pytorch and trivial tuning". [1] https://www.databricks.com/blog/mosaicbert https://www.databricks.com/blog/mosaicbert

pama 2y ago
Please look at any of the plain pytorch codes by Karpathy that complement llm.c. If you want scalable codes, please look at Megatron-LM.

tedivm 2y ago

When I was at Rad AI we did out the math on rent versus buy, and it was just so absolutely ridiculously obvious that buy was the way to go. Cloud does not make sense for AI training right now, as the overhead costs are considerably higher than simply purchasing a cluster, colocating it at a place like Colovore, and paying for "on hands" support. It's not even close.