You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We recently hit a deadlock with our system when we reached the rate limit for Llama 3 70B on Groq. It was a bit of a mess - the program kept retrying, which only made things worse by consuming more tokens and extending the wait time for the rate limit to reset.
As a quick fix, I bundled Llama 3, Llama 3.1, and Gemma 2 into a wrapper. The idea was that if we hit a rate limit error with one model, the system would temporarily switch to another. This works because, at least with Groq, the rate limits are per model.
Now, I made sure beforehand that switching between these models wouldn’t significantly affect our results. But I’m wondering if we could discuss a more formal way to implement this trick.
Think of it like a connection pool for databases, but instead, it’s a ‘rate limit pool’ for LLMs. How could we design this to be more robust and reusable?
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
Hi,
We recently hit a deadlock with our system when we reached the rate limit for Llama 3 70B on Groq. It was a bit of a mess - the program kept retrying, which only made things worse by consuming more tokens and extending the wait time for the rate limit to reset.
As a quick fix, I bundled Llama 3, Llama 3.1, and Gemma 2 into a wrapper. The idea was that if we hit a rate limit error with one model, the system would temporarily switch to another. This works because, at least with Groq, the rate limits are per model.
Now, I made sure beforehand that switching between these models wouldn’t significantly affect our results. But I’m wondering if we could discuss a more formal way to implement this trick.
Think of it like a connection pool for databases, but instead, it’s a ‘rate limit pool’ for LLMs. How could we design this to be more robust and reusable?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions