Operating Multi-Node Full Fine-Tuning on NVIDIA B300: A Field Report on Telemetry-Based Triage, Negative Results, and Operational Hardening

Formal neural network verification -- proving that a network satisfies safety properties for all inputs in a specified domain -- is bounded in practice by GPU memory: standard implementations of bound-propagation algorithms (IBP, CROWN, $α$-CROWN) require weight and relaxation-coefficient matrices to reside entirely on one accelerator. We adapt two parallelism techniques originally developed for large-scale model training to the auto_LiRPA / $α,β$-CROWN verification framework. Tensor Parallelism (TP) shards both weight and $A$-matrices across GPUs, achieving ${\approx}2\times$ peak-memory reduction at $P{=}2$; soundness is confirmed on VNN-COMP 2022 MNIST-FC benchmarks, though bound tightness degrades with the number of sharded zones due to forced IBP substitution for intermediate bounds inside sharded zones. Fully Sharded Data Parallelism (FSDP) shards only weight matrices with a per-layer AllGather, producing bounds that are bitwise identical to the single-GPU baseline: baseline memory drops by 80--90%, peak memory by 34--39% on wide MLPs. FSDP integrates cleanly with complete verification ($β$-CROWN + Branch-and-Bound) and with convolutional layers (BoundConv); a complete unsat result is obtained for CIFAR-100 ResNet-large (VNN-COMP 2024) under FSDP. Across all experiments the memory bottleneck in $α$-CROWN+BaB mode proves to be per-neuron alpha tensors, not weight matrices, pointing to the key direction for future work.

Datacenter GPU power is the binding constraint on LLM serving capacity, and production serving has shifted to prefill/decode (PD) disaggregation. Deploying NVIDIA's Max-Q inference profile on a disaggregated B200 system, we found its realized gain modest (+8.6% tokens/J), model-dependent, and carrying a mean end-to-end latency cost (+5.2%) that throughput-only evaluation does not surface; the profile also applies one setting to prefill and decode GPUs that operate in opposite hardware regimes. We hypothesize that the optimal power setting is a property of the deployed (model, quantization, engine, hardware) combination rather than of the GPU class, that each lane warrants its own profile, and that converting SLO headroom into energy safely requires latency-gated calibration under a runtime SLO guard rather than a fixed recipe. We present a phase-decoupled, model-calibrated controller: the prefill lane runs under an SM-clock window whose floor is a latency guarantee by construction, and the decode lane under a power cap placed by automatic calibration just above a measured throughput/latency cliff. Because a disaggregated decode lane draws flat, memory-bound power, the cap binds continuously, the reactive-overshoot weakness that led POLCA to reject capping is absent, and the GPU's own power manager retains throughput under the cap. On an 8x B200 node serving Qwen3-Coder-480B (FP8) under agentic load, our balanced mode delivers +20.4% tokens/J at +3.5% mean e2e versus +8.6% at +5.2% for Max-Q, a Pareto improvement on both axes. On Qwen3-235B-A22B (NVFP4) every operating mode meets the ITL-p99 SLO in every repetition; both vendor profiles miss it. A decode-actuator A/B shows the calibrated cap beats static clock locks, and a three-day sustained run saves 32.3% of a lane pair's electricity. Both models are MoE; a dense model recovers roughly 5x less, so we scope our claims to MoE serving.

The NVIDIA Blackwell Ultra (B300) GPU cuts FP64 vector throughput $\sim 30\times$ while multiplying FP8 tensor throughput. After the recovery of FP64 GEMM via Ozaki Scheme II on FP8 tensor cores and the Tensor-Memory Equilibrium model of the companions ("FP8 is All You Need, Part 1" and "Ozaki 2.5") we ask whether the fifth canonical HPC primitive, the full-FP64 $1024^3$ 3-D FFT, can be carried by the same substrate, and answer with a design and its limit. It is a Bailey six-step transform with no FP64 arithmetic: FP8-tensor DFT GEMMs with fused twiddles, residue-domain Karatsuba combines and exact CRT reconstruction whose bulk is a small GEMM on the FP16 tensor path and whose remainder is a Kulisch fixed-point accumulation with a two-sided modulo-$M$ lift, so the only rounding is the final conversion; constants are machine-generated and verified bit-exactly. The central finding: the binding resource is not floating point but a per-output integer epilogue with floor $(c_{\rm epi}/8),B_{\rm mem}$, $c_{\rm epi} \approx 203$-$281$ instructions per output: on B300 it holds the transform at 63-87 ms against a 12.9 ms roof ($4.9$-$6.7\times$ short); at most $1.3$-$1.9\times$ faster than the collapsed native path, possibly no faster at realised issue rates; no software route reaches the roof; on the NVIDIA Rubin GPU emulation loses $8$-$11\times$. An FP32 variant meets the same wall: the cause is per-scalar reconstruction, not FP64. Each floor term names its remedy: the NVIDIA B200 GPU's INT8 tensor core restored with a position-weighted cross-column accumulation primitive, a load-path deconstruction datapath shared with the companions, two ISA idioms and modular reduction at the MMA output give 16.0-23.5 ms with minor hardware and 12.9-15.0 ms with one moderate ask. All figures are projected floors, not measurements, with sensitivities and the FP8 layout condition given.