memory: irv-ml1 storetank reclaim closed (Prime via comfy-dev); symlink-target lesson
This commit is contained in:
@@ -172,14 +172,9 @@ _As of 2026-09-30 ~1800 PT._
|
|||||||
- `/tank/spikes/scriberr-slicer`, including `private/`, which holds Prime's recordings (mode 700);
|
- `/tank/spikes/scriberr-slicer`, including `private/`, which holds Prime's recordings (mode 700);
|
||||||
- `/tank/spikes/parakeet-ab` (~25 GB), but only after the switch.
|
- `/tank/spikes/parakeet-ab` (~25 GB), but only after the switch.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### irv-ml1 /storetank at 86% (2026-09-30)
|
### irv-ml1 /storetank: CLOSED (2026-10-01)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
- infra-hermes and comfy-dev built a 4-tier reclaim plan (thread `01M3TCSYRSFNAPA9BPQTMFQ6KJ`):
|
- Prime ruled, via comfy-dev: "delete unused weights + old staged files". comfy-dev executed it himself, 84 files, logged at irv-ml1 `~/3d-dl/deleted-2026-10-01.log`. Free went from 260 to 299 GB (86% → 84%). Tiers B/C/D got no ruling. infra-hermes closed it (thread `01M3TCSYRSFNAPA9BPQTMFQ6KJ`).
|
||||||
- A, staging: 29 GB;
|
|
||||||
- B, identical duplicates: ~9+ GB;
|
|
||||||
- C, superseded generations: ~80 GB;
|
|
||||||
- D, the June wave: ~45 GB.
|
|
||||||
- Delete-hold is ON, awaiting Prime. I recommended A and B. 261 GB free.
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
### nh3-pve + nh3-ml1: post-visit, all live (2026-09-25/26)
|
### nh3-pve + nh3-ml1: post-visit, all live (2026-09-25/26)
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
@@ -488,6 +483,7 @@ _135 older entries archived to archival-memory.md._
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
## Tried and abandoned
|
## Tried and abandoned
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- `[2026-10-01]` **Size + mtime scans to pick reclaimable "staging" on a model store** (infra-hermes, irv-ml1). `_inbound/retro-diffusion` looked like staging leftovers but is the TARGET of 47 model-store symlinks, holding a purchased bundle used by a live commission. Resolve symlinks INTO any staging dir before proposing to delete it.
|
||||||
- `[2026-09-30]` **Shorter Parakeet slices as Scriberr's memory fix.** I predicted ~6× less memory from the attention-matrix arithmetic. Measured, 300 → 120 s only went 9,384 → 6,510 MiB: a ~5.6 GB fixed floor dominates. `expandable_segments:True` was the real lever (5,496). Measure the process peak; never extrapolate it from one tensor.
|
- `[2026-09-30]` **Shorter Parakeet slices as Scriberr's memory fix.** I predicted ~6× less memory from the attention-matrix arithmetic. Measured, 300 → 120 s only went 9,384 → 6,510 MiB: a ~5.6 GB fixed floor dominates. `expandable_segments:True` was the real lever (5,496). Measure the process peak; never extrapolate it from one tensor.
|
||||||
- `[2026-09-30]` **Whole-file local-attention Parakeet in Scriberr (context 255/255).** OOM past 16 GB on a 35-min file. Local attention inside chunks is also non-deterministic run to run.
|
- `[2026-09-30]` **Whole-file local-attention Parakeet in Scriberr (context 255/255).** OOM past 16 GB on a 35-min file. Local attention inside chunks is also non-deterministic run to run.
|
||||||
- `[2026-09-30]` **Start-time midpoint stitching of overlapped Parakeet chunks.** It duplicated a word at 26 of 108 stitches, because Parakeet timestamps a post-pause word anywhere inside the pause. Hand over at a word both chunks agree on instead.
|
- `[2026-09-30]` **Start-time midpoint stitching of overlapped Parakeet chunks.** It duplicated a word at 26 of 108 stitches, because Parakeet timestamps a post-pause word anywhere inside the pause. Hand over at a word both chunks agree on instead.
|
||||||
|
|||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user