Skip to content

Cross-host Fabric: establish two-host feasibility and control-plane requirements #7

Description

@Coekjan

Outcome and baseline

Extend AtnAgent-to-FfnAgent and FfnAgent-to-FfnAgent Fabric traffic across hosts.
Instance-to-AtnAgent Transport remains a host-local, rank-local path. The
current symmetric NVSHMEM Fabric uses a fixed PE world, Device-side publication,
static placement, and canonical generation failure on one host.

This issue covers actual two-host feasibility evidence and a host-aware target
design. Production cross-host bootstrap and serving remain follow-on work.

Suggested implementation route

  1. Specify and qualify the two-host GPU/NIC topology, peer access, network,
    NVSHMEM/IBGDA stack, bootstrap, and permissions. Record the concrete
    environment and compare GPU-initiated and CPU-proxy paths.
  2. Run a raw two-host prototype that verifies publication ordering, remote
    completion, and Graph replay. Measure communication and NIC/QP/completion
    costs and exercise participant failure and shutdown. Retain raw evidence
    for both the working path and any transport limitation.
  3. Propose host identity, NIC/GPU topology, placement, bootstrap, lifecycle,
    failure, and shutdown contracts. Evaluate whether generation-wide fail-stop
    remains appropriate and write a scoped host-aware control-plane plan.
  4. After accepting the plan, implement host-aware configuration and Fabric
    activation while preserving local Transport ownership and explicit process
    supervision.
  5. Qualify multi-host numerical delivery, Graph replay, startup/readiness,
    failure propagation, and safe shutdown under the selected deployment.

Discovery completion evidence

  • Reproducible qualification details for a real two-host environment.
  • Raw ordering, Graph, completion-cost, and failure/shutdown prototype evidence.
  • A reviewed host-aware design recommendation or an evidence-backed no-go.

An unavailable second host or NIC leaves these required experiments incomplete;
it is not evidence of transport infeasibility. Existing Fabric contracts and
Timeline observability benefit this work. A speculative transport-backend
registry is outside scope.

References

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    area:fabricFabric communication and Cross-host Fabric.researchEvidence gathering, compatibility investigation, or an exploratory prototype.roadmapA direction-level issue with an explicitly bounded initial stage.

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions