NVIDIA Gelato vs. Traditional Inference — Key DifferencesNVIDIA Gelato is a relatively new approach to model inference that rethinks how large language models (LLMs) and other AI models are served in production. Traditional inference stacks—built on CPU-bound RPCs, single-model GPU containers, or classic model servers—have been the default for years. Gelato aims to improve utilization, reduce latency, and simplify deployment for large models by introducing architectural and orchestration changes tailored to modern GPU hardware and large model requirements. Below I compare the two approaches across the most important dimensions: architecture, performance, scalability, cost, developer experience, and operational considerations.
What is NVIDIA Gelato (brief)?
NVIDIA Gelato is a runtime and orchestration layer for serving large AI models efficiently on GPU clusters. It focuses on high throughput and low latency for very large transformer-based models by enabling features such as model partitioning, multi-instance GPU sharing, batching strategies optimized for transformer workloads, and tight integration with GPU memory hierarchies (HBM, NVLink, GPU-direct). Gelato leverages NVIDIA’s software stack and hardware capabilities to run models that might not fit into a single GPU, and to serve many concurrent requests without dedicating an entire GPU per model instance.
Architecture and execution model
Traditional inference:
- Typically runs each model instance as a separate process or container.
- Model parallelism, when used, often requires manual sharding and orchestration (pipeline or tensor parallelism frameworks).
- Single-tenant GPU usage is common: one model instance → one GPU (or one container per GPU).
- Batching is handled by the model server (e.g., Triton, TorchServe, custom) with heuristics that can add latency under light load.
NVIDIA Gelato:
- Built for multi-tenant and multi-instance usage: a flexible runtime can host multiple model shards and serve many requests simultaneously.
- Automates partitioning of very large models across multiple GPUs and manages communication (NVLink, NCCL) efficiently.
- Uses dynamic batching and scheduling tuned for transformer patterns to optimize GPU utilization while reducing tail latency.
- Can place model weights in a hierarchy (GPU memory, host memory, NVMe) and stream activations to reduce memory pressure.
Performance (latency & throughput)
Traditional inference:
- When models fit on-device and under high load, traditional servers can achieve good throughput using batching.
- Tail latency can suffer because batching increases latency for small or sparse requests; underprovisioned systems add queueing delay.
- Very large models that exceed a single GPU require complex distributed setups that introduce communication overhead and brittle performance.
NVIDIA Gelato:
- Aims for lower tail latency by intelligent scheduling and avoiding large batching when unnecessary.
- Improves throughput by consolidating small workloads and sharing GPU resources among multiple models/requests.
- Handles very large models more smoothly through automated partitioning and efficient cross-GPU communication, reducing the overhead seen in ad-hoc distributed deployments.
- Real-world gains depend on workload characteristics; Gelato is typically advantageous for many concurrent small-to-medium requests and large models that don’t fit on one GPU.
Scalability and resource utilization
Traditional inference:
- Scaling often means adding more identical model instances (horizontal scaling) and dedicating GPUs per instance; this can waste GPU memory and compute when load is variable.
- Autoscaling reacts to load by starting/stopping containers, which introduces cold starts and state transfer overhead.
- Handling multiple different models on a shared GPU requires careful packing and often custom tooling.
NVIDIA Gelato:
- Designed for higher utilization by packing multiple model shards/instances onto GPU clusters and time-slicing resources across requests.
- Supports elastic scaling with less cold-start overhead since model shards and weights are managed centrally and streamed as needed.
- Better suited to heterogeneous workloads (many model sizes/types) because it can multiplex and reclaim GPU memory efficiently.
Cost considerations
Traditional inference:
- Higher cost when models are large or when traffic is spiky, because best practice often demands provisioning for peak.
- Dedicated GPU instances per model or rapid autoscaling can increase cloud spend and operational complexity.
NVIDIA Gelato:
- Potentially lower total cost of ownership through improved GPU utilization, reduced need to over-provision, and fewer idle GPUs.
- Cost benefits are workload-dependent; small, steady workloads that already fit a single GPU may see less difference.
Developer experience and deployment
Traditional inference:
- Mature tooling exists (Triton, TorchServe, Ray Serve, custom Flask/GRPC wrappers) with wide community support.
- Developers are used to containerized models and standard CI/CD workflows for model versioning and deployment.
- Custom distributed setups require expertise in model parallelism, NCCL, and synchronization.
NVIDIA Gelato:
- Abstracts many low-level distribution and memory-management details, reducing the need for manual model sharding.
- Integrates with NVIDIA ecosystem tools and may require familiarity with NVIDIA-specific tooling and deployment patterns.
- Can simplify deployment of extremely large models, but teams may need to adapt CI/CD and monitoring practices to Gelato’s runtime model.
Monitoring, debugging, and reliability
Traditional inference:
- Debugging single-container instances is straightforward; distributed systems add complexity.
- Existing observability tools (Prometheus, Grafana, OpenTelemetry) integrate well with common model servers.
- Reliability depends on orchestration: Kubernetes + probes, health checks, and horizontal scaling are common patterns.
NVIDIA Gelato:
- Adds new telemetry points (scheduler, partitioning decisions, streaming events) which observability tools must capture.
- Debugging cross-GPU model execution and memory spilling requires understanding Gelato’s runtime behavior.
- Reliability can improve because of centralized management and optimized data movement, but operational tooling must evolve to surface Gelato-specific metrics.
When to choose which
Choose traditional inference if:
- Models fit comfortably on a single GPU and workloads are predictable.
- Your team prefers mature, broadly supported tooling and standard container workflows.
- You want the simplest path for small-to-medium models or latency-insensitive batch workloads.
Choose NVIDIA Gelato if:
- You serve very large models that exceed a single GPU or you need to host many large models concurrently.
- Workloads are heterogeneous or spiky and you need high GPU utilization with low tail latency.
- You’re invested in NVIDIA’s hardware/software stack and want automated partitioning, streaming, and advanced scheduling.
Practical examples
- Small production chatbot with a 7B model on a single GPU: traditional Triton/TorchServe likely sufficient and simpler.
- Multi-tenant platform serving dozens of models (including 70B+ LLMs): Gelato’s packing, streaming, and partitioning can reduce cost and complexity.
- Latency-sensitive inference at scale with many concurrent short requests: Gelato’s scheduling can reduce tail latency compared with naive batching approaches.
Limitations and trade-offs
- Gelato ties you more closely to NVIDIA’s ecosystem; vendor lock-in and portability concerns should be weighed.
- Newer runtimes introduce operational learning curves and may lack the mature community plugins of older servers.
- Not every workload benefits — small, steady, single-model deployments may see marginal gains.
Conclusion
Both approaches have places in modern ML stacks. Traditional inference offers simplicity and mature tooling for models that fit single GPUs or for teams prioritizing portability. NVIDIA Gelato targets high utilization and scalability for very large and heterogeneous workloads by automating partitioning, streaming, and GPU-sharing strategies. The best choice depends on model size, workload patterns, cost targets, and your team’s willingness to adopt NVIDIA-specific tooling.
Leave a Reply