Skip to content
NuGenIT

The map

Four layers, from the building to the scheduler

Almost every AI infrastructure bottleneck lives in one specific layer. Pinpointing which one is half the diagnostic work — and it stops you adopting software that solves a problem you do not have.

LAYER 4 Deep evaluation, serving architecture and scheduling design

Orchestration, scheduling and serving

The software deciding which job runs on which accelerator, how requests are served, and what happens when a node disappears.

The question engineering teams ask

How many requests can one accelerator actually serve, how do we keep shared capacity busy across teams, and what happens to a running job when a spot node is reclaimed?

What goes wrong here

Inference cost climbs faster than usage because serving was left at defaults. Reserved capacity sits idle while another team queues for it. A reclaimed spot instance loses a day of training because the checkpoint was written to the node that disappeared.

How far we go — Deep evaluation

We evaluate products at this layer ourselves and advise on them directly.

This is where we started and where our evaluations are most thorough.

Products we have written up at this layer

vLLM

Inference serving engine

Desk Research

An open-source engine for serving large language models, with memory handling built for high concurrent throughput.

Fit
Teams self-hosting an open-weight model for production inference.
Catch
Serves models well; does not manage your fleet, routing or tenancy.
Read the notes

LiteLLM

Inference gateway

Desk Research

A gateway presenting one consistent interface across many hosted model providers and your own self-hosted models.

Fit
Applications calling more than one model provider, or planning to.
Catch
Adds a network hop, and sits on the critical path of every request.
Read the notes

SkyPilot

Multi-cloud workload orchestration

Desk Research

An open-source layer that runs the same job on whichever cloud, specialist GPU provider or Kubernetes cluster has capacity.

Fit
Teams using more than one compute provider, or wanting to.
Catch
You still need accounts and quota with every provider it places work on.
Read the notes

Run:ai

GPU pooling and fractional sharing

Desk Research

A Kubernetes-based orchestration layer that pools accelerators across teams and allocates fractions of one to a workload.

Fit
Shared clusters where several teams compete for fixed capacity.
Catch
Assumes you already run Kubernetes, and run it well.
Read the notes

Kubernetes batch scheduling

Batch scheduling

Desk Research

Add-ons giving Kubernetes the queueing and gang-scheduling behaviour AI workloads need and plain Kubernetes does not provide.

Fit
Organisations already standardised on Kubernetes.
Catch
You assemble a scheduler from components rather than buying one.
Read the notes
LAYER 3 Deep evaluation, provider comparison and capacity strategy

Compute and cloud

Where the accelerators physically are — a hyperscaler, a specialist AI cloud, or your own racks.

The question engineering teams ask

Where does our capacity come from, on what term, and does the total cost of a multi-year reservation actually beat staying flexible?

What goes wrong here

A multi-year term signed for a workload that looked different within two quarters, with no way to hand it back. Or on-demand rates paid indefinitely for a baseline that has been flat for a year.

How far we go — Deep evaluation

We evaluate products at this layer ourselves and advise on them directly.

We track the specialist providers closely, including how their commercial terms differ from the hyperscalers.

LAYER 2 Network topology design and data-movement cost modelling

Network and interconnect

The private links between your data centre, your clouds, your storage and everyone else.

The question engineering teams ask

What is cross-cloud egress actually costing us each month, and is the path between storage and accelerators wide enough to keep them fed?

What goes wrong here

Egress charges leak quietly until data movement is one of the largest lines on the invoice. Accelerators idle waiting on input because the path to the data was never sized for this workload.

How far we go — Architecture and design

We specify the requirement and review the design. Delivery is with a specialist partner.

We size and specify the requirement; delivery is with a specialist partner.

LAYER 1 Density and power-constraint mapping, DCIM and specialist coordination

Facility, power and cooling

The building, the power feed and the cooling a dense accelerator rack needs to run at the performance you paid for.

The question engineering teams ask

Can our facility or colocation footprint take the power draw and heat of the racks we are planning, and is the software layer above them ready for it?

What goes wrong here

Hardware arrives and the room cannot cool it. Accelerators throttle under sustained load, so you pay for performance that is never delivered — and nobody finds out until the first long run.

How far we go — Requirements and constraints

We map the constraints this layer imposes on everything above it. We have not run product evaluations here yet.

We are honest about this. We map the constraints and coordinate specialists; we are not facility engineers and we do not pretend to be.

Tell us what you are trying to solve.

Describe your current setup and the problem in your own words. We reply within 2 working days with an honest assessment of whether we can help.