There’s absolutely nothing to worry about, as long as it’s fully unit, integration, regression, end-to-end, performance, load, stress, security, compatibility and chaos tested, with 100% deterministic CI/CD, exhaustive static analysis, mutation testing, zero flaky tests, full observability, reproducible builds, verified database migrations, backward-compatible APIs, canary deployment, automated rollback, and a completely green production-equivalent staging environment.
LGTM. Ship it.
That is what you say when your benchmark has two columns and your production system has never met a real user.
Price per task and speed matter, but so do correctness, reliability, safety, latency variance, observability, recoverability, and whether the “completed” task is actually correct.
A cheap, fast hallucination is not task completion. It is automated failure.
I just ran #Poolside’s #Laguna S2.1 NVFP4 locally on an @NVIDIAAI#DGX Spark with @vllm_project and @NousResearch Hermes Agent.
The surprising result:
DFlash can make it 3x faster.
Or make it slower than normal decoding.
Real measurements below 🧵
My conclusion:
• General Hermes Agent use: run Laguna without DFlash
• Long, predictable code generation: use DFlash with 15 draft tokens
• Avoid blindly optimizing for peak tok/s
• Measure end-to-end performance on the actual workload
Local agents are becoming genuinely practical on a single DGX Spark.
I just ran #Poolside’s #Laguna S2.1 NVFP4 locally on an @NVIDIAAI#DGX Spark with @vllm_project and @NousResearch Hermes Agent.
The surprising result:
DFlash can make it 3x faster.
Or make it slower than normal decoding.
Real measurements below 🧵
But on less predictable reasoning and agent outputs:
• Acceptance fell to 2% to 8%
• Generation dropped to 10 to 18 tok/s
• Sometimes slower than the stable 19.2 tok/s baseline
The draft model was generating quickly, but most proposed tokens were discarded.
Speculation is not automatically acceleration.