>If your GPU(s) have less than 80GB, you'll have to tune some of the hyperparameters or you will OOM / run out of VRAM. Look for --device_batch_size in the scripts and reduce it until things fit. E.g. from 32 (default) to 16, 8, 4, 2, or even 1.
That sounds like it could run on a 24gb GPU. Batch size of 8 would imply 20gb mem, no?
Yes, you can always stream data when training or doing inference on models when vram is lacking but the slow down is extremely noticeable. This is the case for CPU code too and is why optimising for bandwidth is so critical in high-performance computing. Your ability to compute is almost always substantially larger than your bandwidth. An Avx512 capable CPU with a suitable amount of cores is easily capable of doing multiple terabytes of fp64 operations per second, but is typically limited by memory bandwidth, GPUs with LLMs have just broadened this knowledge to more people.
A fun consequence of the fact that CPUs got faster at a rate quicker than memory is look up tables of pre-computed values used to be common optimisations in code, but now it is almost always quicker to re-compute them than to retrieve a pre-computed value from memory for common use-cases.
I'm running it now and I had to go down to 4 instead of 8, and that 4 is using around 22-23GB of GPU memory. Not sure if something is wrong or if batch is only scaling part of the memory requirements. (Edit: I restarted running the training script directly instead of torch run, and 8 still doesn't fit, but 4 is now using 16-17 instead.)
On my 4090 the tok/sec is 523, which is 1/2000 of the 1,000,000 tok/sec of the 8 80GB H100s. That feels too slow so maybe something is wrong. The 4090 is about 1/3 of the raw compute. I'm sure there's other losses from less batching but even if it were 1/10ths as fast, I'd expected something more like 1,000,000 / 10 / 8 so at least 10,000 tok/sec.
That sounds like it could run on a 24gb GPU. Batch size of 8 would imply 20gb mem, no?
...presumably just takes forever