PHOENIX: Resilient LLM Training with Hot-Swapping via Zero-Overhead Checkpoint
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
State-of-the-art large language model (LLM) training takes tens of thousands of graphics processing units (GPUs) for months and encounters failures across the software and hardware stack. Existing fault-tolerance mechanisms either impose non-trivial overhead during failure-free execution or suffer from prolonged recovery latency, particularly under scenarios where a small subset of compute nodes experience permanent failures. %The tradeoff between failure-free overhead and recovery latency forms a space forms a Pareto frontier We present PHOENIX to simultaneously address both optimization objectives. PHOENIX incorporates a fault-tolerance mechanism that restores LLM training via hot-swapping, namely by replacing failed nodes with spare nodes without terminating the complete job. The hot-swapping of PHOENIX is enabled by two ideas: First, it exploits an off-critical-path in-memory checkpointing mechanism for spatial redundancy. Second, it introduces a communicator reconstruction protocol that replaces failed nodes with spare nodes at runtime. PHOENIX efficiently overlaps the in-memory checkpointing with computation, thus introducing zero overhead during error-free execution. Upon permanent node failures, PHOENIX can rebuild memory states with minimal recomputation by leveraging in-memory checkpoints. We evaluate PHOENIX across scales (up to 512 NVIDIA A100 GPUs) and LLMs (up to 65B parameters), and observe zero checkpoint overhead with hot-swapping recovery completing in under 40 seconds. These results show that PHOENIX simultaneously achieves both zero-overhead error-free execution and extremely low recovery cost.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jul 2026.
Builds on
22 of 43 references.
References · 22
- 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2021On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Modelscited by 3,961
- 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 2,927
- 2021Efficient Large-Scale Language Model Training on GPU Clusters Using Megatron-LMcited by 621
- 2023Ring Attention with Blockwise Transformers for Near-Infinite Contextcited by 448
- 2018Horovod: fast and easy distributed deep learning in TensorFlowcited by 275
- 2018Demystifying Parallel and Distributed Deep Learning: An In-Depth Concurrency Analysiscited by 154
- 2021Sequence Parallelism: Long Sequence Training from System Perspectivecited by 125
- 2019Analysis of Large-Scale Multi-Tenant GPU Clusters for DNN Training Workloadscited by 79
- 2022Bamboo: Making Preemptible Instances Resilient for Affordable Training of Large DNNscited by 49
- 2021Varuna: Scalable, Low-cost Training of Massive Deep Learning Modelscited by 40
10 more
- 2023Oobleck: Resilient Distributed Training of Large Models Using Pipeline Templatescited by 40
- 2024ByteCheckpoint: A Unified Checkpointing System for Large Foundation Model Developmentcited by 23
- 2024Parcae: Proactive, Liveput-Optimized DNN Training on Preemptible Instancescited by 16
- 2024DataStates-LLM: Lazy Asynchronous Checkpointing for Large Language Modelscited by 16
- 2023TRANSOM: An Efficient Fault-Tolerant System for Training LLMscited by 12
- 2020CPR: Understanding and Improving Failure Tolerant Training for Deep Learning Recommendation with Partial Recoverycited by 11
- 2024Universal Checkpointing: A Flexible and Efficient Distributed Checkpointing System for Large-Scale DNN Training with Reconfigurable Paralleliscited by 9
- 2024FastPersist: Accelerating Model Checkpointing in Deep Learningcited by 6
- 2026Training LLMs with Fault Tolerant HSDP on 100,000 GPUscited by 6
- 2023Fine-grained Policy-driven I/O Sharing for Burst Bufferscited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.