← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.05991 · v1
A Controlled Experimental Evaluation of Configuration and Cache Architecture in LLM Serving Engines
首次提交 2026-11-04 13:37
版本更新 2026-11-04 13:37
雷达观测 2026-11-05 11:10
摘要
Multi-agent LLM applications repeat most of their prompt tokens across requests, and serving engines reuse the cached state of shared prefixes. vLLM and SGLang reuse it at different granularities, and benchmarks of their default deployments report large performance gaps, usually credited to the cache. Such comparisons rarely control for other configuration differences. One of them, whether a long prompt is prefilled in chunks, is set by each engine's defaults from the hardware and the release, and it confounds the comparison. We built a reproducible testbed on Kubernetes and a seeded multi-agent workload generator, and compared the two engines under vendor defaults and with chunked prefill matched. SGLang's configuration is the same in both arms, which makes it an internal control across independently provisioned deployments. Under defaults, vLLM's median time to first token is up to 64x SGLang's. Matching one setting removes 78% of the capacity gap where that gap is largest and 30 to 67% of the latency gap. Near saturation the remaining latency gap reflects queue growth. A fluid queue model driven only by a 4.4% throughput shortfall reproduces it, and shows that such a gap scales with the length of the benchmark run. What survives matching is a tail-latency advantage of 2.4 to 6.4x at equal throughput, consistent with cache-aware ordering of waiting requests. We derive six recommendations for comparing serving engines.
作者备注：29 pages, 14 figures, 7 tables. Artifact: https://github.com/FaizanAnwar01/llm-serving-config-eval
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-04 13:37 · 最新观测版本
A Controlled Experimental Evaluation of Configuration and Cache Architecture in LLM Serving Engines
Multi-agent LLM applications repeat most of their prompt tokens across requests, and serving engines reuse the cached state of shared prefixes. vLLM and SGLang reuse it at different granularities, and benchmarks of their default deployments report large performance gaps, usually credited to the cache. Such comparisons rarely control for other configuration differences. One of them, whether a long prompt is prefilled in chunks, is set by each engine's defaults from the hardware and the release, and it confounds the comparison. We built a reproducible testbed on Kubernetes and a seeded multi-agent workload generator, and compared the two engines under vendor defaults and with chunked prefill matched. SGLang's configuration is the same in both arms, which makes it an internal control across independently provisioned deployments. Under defaults, vLLM's median time to first token is up to 64x SGLang's. Matching one setting removes 78% of the capacity gap where that gap is largest and 30 to 67% of the latency gap. Near saturation the remaining latency gap reflects queue growth. A fluid queue model driven only by a 4.4% throughput shortfall reproduces it, and shows that such a gap scales with the length of the benchmark run. What survives matching is a tail-latency advantage of 2.4 to 6.4x at equal throughput, consistent with cache-aware ordering of waiting requests. We derive six recommendations for comparing serving engines.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗