Part 2: Scaling Translation Inference: +82% Throughput

Recap: The Problem

In Part 1 , we identified the bottleneck: our FastAPI service used multiprocessing workers with IPC queues to distribute translation tasks. This created:

• Queue serialization overhead
• GPU compute contention between worker processes
• Spiky GPU utilization pattern

Baseline: 2.2 RPS at 25 concurrent requests

The path forward: eliminate multiprocessing and utilize vLLM’s batch inference.

Attempt 2: Static Batching

We implemented static batching within the existing worker processes.

Implementation

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

# Within worker process
MAX_BATCH_SIZE = 16
BATCH_TIMEOUT = 0.05  # 50ms

while True:
    batch_keys = []
    batch_tasks = []

    # Collect first task (blocking)
    first_key = queue.get()
    batch_keys.append(first_key)
    batch_tasks.append(tasks[first_key])

    # Try to collect more tasks (non-blocking with timeout)
    batch_start = time.time()
    while len(batch_keys) < MAX_BATCH_SIZE:
        time_remaining = BATCH_TIMEOUT - (time.time() - batch_start)
        if time_remaining <= 0:
            break
        try:
            key = queue.get(timeout=time_remaining)
            batch_keys.append(key)
            batch_tasks.append(tasks[key])
        except Empty:
            break

    # Process batch using vLLM
    results = translation_provider.translate_batch(
        texts=[t.text for t in batch_tasks],
        source_langs=[t.source_lang for t in batch_tasks],
        target_langs=[t.target_lang for t in batch_tasks]
    )

Key points:

• Batch size: 16 requests
• Timeout: 50ms (don’t wait indefinitely for full batch)
• vLLM processes multiple sequences together
• Still uses multiprocessing workers

Results

Nearly 3x throughput improvement. Per-request inference time: 452ms → 171ms.

Trade-offs

Pros:

• Massive throughput gains
• GPU better utilized
• Simple implementation

Cons:

• Head-of-line blocking: All requests wait for the slowest one
• With variable-length inputs, short translations wait for long ones
• Example: [50 tokens, 50 tokens, 200 tokens] – first two wait for the 200-token translation

This was good progress, but we wanted to eliminate the head-of-line blocking issue.

Attempt 3: Continuous Batching

The solution: vLLM’s AsyncLLMEngine with continuous batching.

What is Continuous Batching?

Unlike static batching, continuous batching composes batches dynamically:

• New requests join mid-generation
• Completed requests leave immediately (don’t wait for others)
• Batch composition updates every token
• vLLM’s AsyncLLMEngine handles this automatically

No head-of-line blocking. Short translations return as soon as they’re done.

Implementation

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

from vllm import AsyncLLMEngine, EngineArgs

engine_args = EngineArgs(
    model=model_id,
    max_num_seqs=64,  # Initial attempt
    max_num_batched_tokens=16384,
    gpu_memory_utilization=0.3,
    enable_chunked_prefill=True,
)

engine = AsyncLLMEngine.from_engine_args(engine_args)

@app.post("/translate")
async def translate(request: TranslateRequest):
    result_generator = engine.generate(
        request.text,
        sampling_params,
        request_id=generate_id()
    )

    async for output in result_generator:
        final_output = output
    return TranslateResponse(translation=final_output.text)

Architecture change:

• AsyncLLMEngine used directly in FastAPI
• vLLM handles batching internally via continuous batching engine
• Pure async/await throughout

Testing Reality Check

Initial Results (Uniform Inputs)

We tested with standard uniform-length inputs (similar lengths):

15 RPS vs 2.2 baseline – nearly 7x improvement. This looked great.

Variable-Length Inputs (Reality)

Then we tested with realistic variable-length inputs (10-200 tokens, mixed short and long):

Baseline re-run with variable inputs:

• Very heavy load: 1.1 RPS (vs 2.2 RPS with uniform)
• Even baseline performed worse with realistic data

Continuous batching (max_num_seqs=64) with variable inputs:

• Very heavy load: 3.5 RPS (with max_num_seqs=16 tuning)
• Same configuration that gave us 15 RPS with uniform inputs

Configuration Tuning

The poor performance with max_num_seqs=64 led us to analyze vLLM’s internal metrics.

What We Found

1
2
3
4
5

# vLLM Prometheus metrics we monitored:
# - vllm:time_to_first_token_seconds (TTFT)
# - vllm:time_per_output_token_seconds (decode time)
# - vllm:gpu_cache_usage_perc (KV cache utilization)
# - vllm:num_requests_running / waiting (queue depth)

The issue:

• Actual workload: 2-20 concurrent requests per server (production peak ~20 per server)
• Configuration: max_num_seqs=64
• Result: 60+ empty slots creating overhead

What happens with oversized config:

• KV cache pre-allocated for 64 sequences
• vLLM scheduler manages 64 slots but only uses 5-10
• Decode time per token increases
• Memory wasted on unused sequence slots
• Scheduler overhead for empty slots

Tuning Approach

Following vLLM continuous batching tuning guide:

1. Measure actual concurrent request distribution in production
2. Start with max_num_seqs=1, gradually increase: 2 → 4 → 8 → 16 → 32
3. Monitor decode time and tail latency at each step
4. Stop when performance degrades

Final Configuration

 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8
 9
10
11
12

from translation_lib.config import AsyncVLLMTranslationProvider

provider = AsyncVLLMTranslationProvider(
    model_name=model_id,
    revision=model_revision,
    gpu_memory_utilization=0.3,  # ~10GB on RTX 5090
    max_num_seqs=16,  # Right-sized to actual workload per server
    huggingface_token=hf_token,
    supported_language_pairs=None,  # Multilingual model
)

await provider.initialize_engine()

Configuration Rationale

max_num_seqs=16:

• Production peak: ~20 concurrent requests per server
• Testing: Validated up to 25 concurrent
• Provides headroom without wasting resources
• Scheduler overhead matched to actual load

max_num_batched_tokens=8192:

• Reduced from default 16384
• Better suited for our average sequence lengths
• Reduces memory pressure

gpu_memory_utilization=0.3:

• Allocates ~10GB VRAM for model + KV cache on RTX 5090 (32GB)
• Tracked via vllm:gpu_cache_usage_perc
• Balanced for our configuration

Note: The principle: match configuration to your actual workload, not theoretical limits.

Production Results

We deployed the optimized configuration to production (RTX 5090 GPUs).

Before vs After

The improvement held in production. From 9 RPS to 16.4 RPS under real traffic.

Summary

What Worked

vLLM’s continuous batching

• AsyncLLMEngine handles batching automatically
• No manual batch collection overhead
• Direct async/await integration with FastAPI

Right-sized configuration

• max_num_seqs=16 (matched actual workload per server)
• Not 64 (theoretical max that created overhead)
• gpu_memory_utilization=0.3 for 10GB allocation

Tested with realistic data

• Variable-length inputs exposed configuration issues
• Uniform test data gave misleading 15 RPS

Monitored vLLM metrics

• KV cache usage
• Decode time per token
• Queue depth
• Guided configuration decisions

Complete Journey

Related: Read Part 1: The Bottleneck to Scale Our Translation vLLM Inference Servers