Faulty Nvidia H100 GPUs and HBM3 memory caused half of failures during LLama 3 training — one failure every three hours for Meta's 16,384 GPU training cluster

Nvidia
(Image credit: Nvidia)

Meta recently released a study detailing its Llama 3 405B model training run on a cluster containing 16,384 Nvidia H100 80GB GPUs. The training run took place over 54 days and the cluster encountered 419 unexpected component failures during that time, averaging one failure every three hours. In half of the failure cases, GPUs or their onboard HBM3 memory were to blame.  

As the old supercomputing adage goes, the only certainty with large-scale systems is failure. Supercomputers are extremely complex devices that use tens of thousands of processors, hundreds of thousands of other chips, and hundreds of miles of cables. In a sophisticated supercomputer, it's normal for something to break down every few hours, and the main trick for developers is to ensure that the system remains operational regardless of such local breakdowns.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • jkhoward
    I’d be pissed if two of my CPUs failed in 54 days..
    Reply
  • Flayed
    Assuming they had somewhere in the region of 2,500 CPUs 2 failures doesn't seem that bad.
    Reply
  • Steve Nord_
    High rel humblebrags and chassis adequacy are good to have. Sooo...looking at soft failures? Ah, 96 page ops report linked at top of article, better than being there.
    Reply
  • Alvar "Miles" Udell
    Considering the fact that a 16,384 GPU cluster experienced 419 failures in 54 days (7.76 times per 24 hours, or a failure every three hours), we can only wonder how often xAI's cluster containing 100,000 H100 GPUs, a six-fold increase in the number of components that could fail, will experience a failure.

    Well if a 16,384 GPU cluster had a 2.56% failure rate with 419 GPU failures, then a 100,000 GPU cluster experiencing the same rate would see 2,560 failures.

    The question is if they're covered by warranty.
    Reply
  • slimsea
    Alvar Miles Udell said:
    Well if a 16,384 GPU cluster had a 2.56% failure rate with 419 GPU failures, then a 100,000 GPU cluster experiencing the same rate would see 2,560 failures.

    The question is if they're covered by warranty.
    It'll be really interesting to see the full bathtub curve over the system lifetime.

    These clusters have to run about three years, let's call that 20x 54 days. If the failure rate stayed flat over that time (was this the cluster's first run after commissioning or has it been around a while already?), that would mean 50% of gpus fail... Ouch! Does not seem very economical, or confidence-inspiring.
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    Alvar Miles Udell said:
    Well if a 16,384 GPU cluster had a 2.56% failure rate with 419 GPU failures, then a 100,000 GPU cluster experiencing the same rate would see 2,560 failures.

    The question is if they're covered by warranty.
    Your numbers are wrong because the title is misleading, bordering on clickbait, and because you didn't bother to read any of the article. 419 is the total number of unexpected interruptions of any kind, not just the GPU. There were 148 GPU failures (0.90% failure rate) and 72 HBM3 failures (.44%) for a total H100 failure rate of 1.34%.
    Reply
  • Alvar "Miles" Udell
    spongiemaster said:
    Your numbers are wrong because the title is misleading, bordering on clickbait, and because you didn't bother to read any of the article. 419 is the total number of unexpected interruptions of any kind, not just the GPU. There were 148 GPU failures (0.90% failure rate) and 72 HBM3 failures (.44%) for a total H100 failure rate of 1.34%.

    Actually we are both wrong, it's 270, or 1.65%, going by the category numbers.

    Faulty GPU - 148
    Faulty HBM3 - 72
    Faulty SRAM - 19
    Faulty GPU Processor - 17
    Silent data corruption - 6
    Thermal Interface Sensor - 6

    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    Alvar Miles Udell said:
    Actually we are both wrong, it's 270, or 1.65%, going by the category numbers.

    Faulty GPU - 148
    Faulty HBM3 - 72
    Faulty SRAM - 19
    Faulty GPU Processor - 17
    Silent data corruption - 6
    Thermal Interface Sensor - 6

    Not all of those issues would require a GPU replacement. Regardless, the point stands that the article title is misleading and the number is much lower than 419 failures.
    Reply
  • DS426
    Even at a failure rate of "only 1.65%," this is on a rather short 54 day computing workload. Normalizing to an annualized failure rate and assuming the rate wouldn't climb (silicon degradation would accelerate the FR but let's ignore), Meta would be looking at about an 11.15% AFR.

    I guess the upside is that the GPUs would still be under warranty, so then it just becomes an additional labor cost and a tiny slab of productivity lost on training.
    Reply
  • Daniel15
    The link to the study is a temporary CDN URL which has expired, so it doesn't work any more. Can you please update it with the original link?
    Reply