Introduction
Teams move beyond pilots and place large language models into production paths. Operations demand predictable latency, bounded cost, and strong safety guarantees. I treat LLM integration as a platform concern, not a point solution. I set guardrails as code, isolate workloads by tenant and risk, and measure every hop the same way I measure any other critical system. That mindset turns experiments into dependable services.
I avoid magical thinking. I establish constraints first: data residency, privacy posture, response SLAs, and per‑request budget. Then I map user journeys and choose the minimal architecture that satisfies them. I prefer boring primitives—queues, caches, rate limits, and audit logs—before fancy stacks. With that foundation, I iterate quickly without losing control of quality or spend.
Architecture Objectives
The platform balances four objectives: reliability, safety, cost, and speed of iteration. Reliability means deterministic failure modes and graceful degradation when providers slow down or a model behaves unpredictably. Safety means guardrails that reduce harmful or non‑compliant output before it reaches users. Cost means predictable unit economics per successful request. Speed of iteration means developers ship new prompts, routing rules, and retrieval strategies behind feature flags with traceability.
I design for observability from the start. Every inference request carries a trace ID, the model route, the content policy verdicts, and the retrieval context fingerprint. I log these fields for post‑incident analysis and continuous evaluation. When a result surprises a user, I can reconstruct what the system did and why.
Workload Isolation
Isolation creates safety and cost boundaries. I separate inference traffic by tenant, environment, and risk profile. Low‑risk, low‑value flows share pooled capacity. Sensitive flows run in dedicated projects with strict egress control and independent quotas. This prevents bursty experiments from starving production and limits blast radius when a policy misconfiguration slips through.
At the runtime level I keep separate API keys, service accounts, and VPC egress policies. I place retrieval stores and feature stores in subnets that never accept inbound traffic from the public Internet. I use short‑lived credentials issued per job, and I revoke them automatically when an execution window closes. The path from user input to model to storage remains explicit and auditable.
Guardrails as Layers
I treat guardrails as layered filters around the model. The first layer validates inputs: size limits, token budgets, schema checks, language detection, and PII screening. I reject or normalize early to protect downstream resources. The second layer shapes prompts deterministically: I strip dangerous directives, constrain persona, and apply system‑level instructions that codify tone and scope. The third layer governs retrieval: only allow documents from an approved index with document‑level ACL checks.
On the way out, I enforce output policies. I evaluate responses with lightweight classifiers and pattern matchers for secrets, toxicity, and sensitive topics. I redact or block when rules fire and attach an explanation visible to users and audit logs. Where the domain requires it, I insert human‑in‑the‑loop review and record outcomes for training and continuous improvement.
Retrieval and Context Governance
RAG improves factuality only when retrieval is reliable. I maintain a strict separation between a curated, versioned index for production and a sandbox index for experimentation. I tag documents with data residency and sensitivity levels and filter at query time. I track recall and precision of retrieval independently from model quality, and I surface stale or low‑confidence citations to prompt fallback behaviors.
Context windows are budgets, not wishlists. I prioritize high‑signal chunks, normalize formats, and deduplicate aggressively. I cap token usage per tier and report when truncation occurs. For structured tasks I prefer deterministic templates and function calling instead of free‑form generation. The goal is repeatability that survives model upgrades.
Routing and Fallbacks
No single model serves every task well or affordably. I route by capability, latency target, and cost ceiling. For classification or extraction I prefer small, fast models. For multi‑turn reasoning I use a larger model but protect the path with stricter budgets and caching. I keep an offline evaluation matrix that maps tasks to models and I treat the routing table as configuration with version history.
Degradation is a feature. When a primary model or provider degrades, I fall back to a secondary route with clear expectations—maybe lower creativity or tighter response length. I surface the degradation in telemetry and, when appropriate, to users. I avoid silent retries that inflate cost without improving outcomes.
Observability and SLOs
I define SLOs for p95 latency, success rate, and cost per 1K tokens or per request. I measure retrieval freshness and policy hit rates as first‑class signals. I annotate every request with model version, prompt template hash, retrieval index version, and guardrail verdicts. Dashboards separate model latency from retrieval latency and network latency to avoid blaming the wrong layer.
I treat evaluation as an always‑on process. I maintain golden datasets per use case and replay them after model or prompt changes. I compare outcomes with quality scores that the business cares about—accuracy on structured fields, refusal correctness, and adherence to schema. When a release drifts, I halt promotion automatically and roll back via configuration.
Cost Controls
I control spend with a few disciplined practices. First, I cache aggressively: retrieval results, tool outputs, and even complete responses when idempotent. Second, I enforce maximum output tokens and compress context. Third, I batch compatible tasks and schedule non‑interactive jobs on cheaper capacity. Finally, I make costs visible in development by annotating traces with token counts and projected spend so engineers see impact before code reaches production.
I track unit economics per product surface: cost per successful answer, cost per automated ticket resolved, or cost per document summarized. I align quotas with these metrics so a runaway workflow cannot exceed a budget without an intentional decision. Finance and engineering share the same dashboards to avoid surprises.
Security and Compliance
Inputs may contain secrets and personal data. I scan and tokenize sensitive fields before retrieval or inference whenever possible. I encrypt data in transit with mutual TLS and restrict egress to allow‑listed domains. For jurisdictions with strict residency, I pin retrieval stores and intermediate artifacts to regional projects and verify that prompts and responses never cross boundaries without pseudonymization.
I keep complete, immutable audit logs: who sent what, which policies fired, which model answered, and which documents were retrieved. I rotate keys, restrict console access, and review admin actions with multi‑party approval. Compliance becomes a property of the platform, not a series of one‑off reviews.
Failure Modes and Game Days
I simulate real failures: provider timeouts, elevated tail latency, stale retrieval indexes, policy engine outages, and quota exhaustion. I verify that the system fails closed when guardrails crash and fails open only for low‑risk internal tools with explicit approval. I test replay safety, idempotency of tool execution, and recovery from partial writes to the vector store or cache.
Game days include organizational drills. I practice prompt rollback, routing flips, index re‑ingestion, and secret rotation. I ensure incident channels provide the right telemetry by default so responders do not scramble for context under pressure. After each exercise I update runbooks and attach them to the control plane as executable steps.
Change Management
I ship prompts, routes, and policies through the same pipeline as code. Every change includes an owner, a ticket, and evaluation results. I enable shadow testing before promotion and I roll out gradually by tenant or percentage. Feature flags control risky experiments, and kill‑switches turn off problematic tools without redeploying services.
I align product and platform teams on release criteria: target SLOs, maximum token cost, and policy compliance thresholds. When a change fails to meet criteria, the control plane blocks promotion automatically. This discipline keeps iteration fast without losing the engineering rigor that production systems demand.
Conclusion
LLM features become dependable when architecture leads. I layer guardrails, isolate workloads, and make routing and costs explicit. I measure what matters and practice failure until recovery is boring. With these habits, the platform delivers useful results at a predictable price—and it does so without surprising users, operators, or auditors.
No comments:
Post a Comment