AI Infra Interviews logo
GPU & Accelerator Architecture / 19
mediumNewNVIDIACoreWeaveNebius

MIG versus MPS: what isolation does each give you when sharing a GPU, and which would you pick for a multi-tenant inference node?

MIG carves an H100 into up to seven hardware slices with their own SMs, memory and bandwidth; MPS lets processes share one SM pool through a single context. One gives fault and performance isolation at a fixed slice size; the other gives flexibility and a shared failure domain. The numbers that decide it.

Updated Sep 2026 · Grounded in real AI infrastructure interview loops and written to a senior-engineer editorial bar, with every number worked and every diagram hand-built.

MIG carves an H100 into up to seven hardware slices with their own SMs, memory and bandwidth; MPS lets processes share one SM pool through a single context. One gives fault and performance isolation at a fixed slice size; the other gives flexibility and a shared failure domain. The numbers that decide it.

more free answers with an account · no card

The concepts behind this question

Ranked by how closely each one overlaps this question's topic, so the first card is the thing to read if the answer above moved too fast.

Core
🗂️ Scheduling & OrchestrationSign in
MIG, MPS and Time-SlicingA whole H100 is far more than a notebook, a small inference service or a CI job needs, and giving each of them a card leaves most of the fleet idle. Three mechanisms share a GPU, and they differ in what they isolate: MIG partitions the hardware into up to seven slices with their own memory and compute, MPS lets several processes share one GPU's SMs concurrently with no memory isolation, and time-slicing context-switches between processes with no isolation at all. The choice is the isolation the workload needs against the utilization the platform wants.
Advanced
🗂️ Scheduling & Orchestration🔒 Premium
Multi-Tenancy, Quotas and Fair ShareA shared GPU pool is cheaper than ten private ones because ten teams' demand is smoother than one team's, and it only works if the sharing is enforced. Quotas say what each team is guaranteed, borrowing lets idle guarantees be used by others, fair share decides who waits when everyone wants more, and preemption reclaims borrowed capacity. This page works the arithmetic that makes pooling worth it, the layers of isolation a tenant needs, and the incentive problems (hoarding, gaming, the research-versus-product tension) that any policy has to survive.
Advanced
📐 AI Systems Design🔒 Premium
Multi-Tenant Fine-Tuning ServiceA fine-tuning service takes a customer's dataset and a base model and returns a model, and the design problem is that many customers want this at once, cheaply, without seeing each other's data, on GPUs that must not sit idle between jobs. LoRA changes the shape: an adapter is a few hundred megabytes rather than a copy of the base, so many jobs can share a base in memory and many adapters can be served from one replica. This page designs the service end to end: the pipeline, the LoRA arithmetic that sets memory and cost, the isolation, the scheduler that packs jobs, and the serving path.
Foundational
🗂️ Scheduling & Orchestration
Kubernetes GPU SchedulingKubernetes knows nothing about GPUs until something tells it. The NVIDIA device plugin advertises each node's GPUs as a countable resource, the scheduler matches a pod's request to a node with enough of them, and the container runtime wires the device in. That model is enough for one job per GPU and breaks the moment you need sharing, topology or multi-node placement, which is where Dynamic Resource Allocation, the GPU Operator and the batch schedulers come in. Knowing which layer does what is the platform interview's opening question.
UP NEXT ON YOUR JOURNEY
FEDITOR'S NOTE

Scored on a correct account of what each mechanism partitions (compute, memory, bandwidth, faults), the fit arithmetic for a slice, and a decision tied to tenant trust and workload shape.

DISCUSSION · 0

No comments yet — be the first to share your approach.