How Far Can Disaggregation Go? A Design-Space Exploration of Attention-FFN Disaggregation for Efficient MoE LLM Serving

Hanjiang Wu, Abhimanyu Rajeshkumar Bambhaniya, Sarbartha Banerjee, Tuhin Khare, Sudarshan Srinivasan, Suvinay Subramanian, Souvik Kundu, Madhu Kumar, Midhilesh Elavazhagan, William Won, Amir Yazdanbakhsh, Tushar Krishna/How Far Can Disaggregation Go? A Design-Space Exploration of Attention-FFN Disaggregation for Efficient MoE LLM ServingUnknown

Modern large language model (LLM) inference has progressively disaggregated to keep pace with growing model sizes and tight TTFT and TPOT service-level objectives: from chunked-prefill aggregation, to prefill-decode (P/D) disaggregation, and most recently to operator-level Attention-FFN Disaggregation (AFD). This trend is especially important for mixture-of-experts (MoE) models, where memory-bound attention, compute-intensive expert FFNs, and MoE dispatch/combine communication create distinct resource demands. AFD further exposes this heterogeneity by placing attention and MoE-FFN execution on separate GPU groups. Each level of disaggregation deepens the scheduling design space across workload characteristics, resource allocation, and interconnect topology, raising the central question: when does each level actually pay off? We systematically characterize this trade-off for MoE inference across realistic workloads spanning input/output sequence lengths, prefix-KV reuse, and per-user latency constraints. Using chunked-prefill and P/D disaggregation as baselines, we study the benefits and limits of AFD at scale through a framework that fuses on-device kernel measurements with high-fidelity network simulation. Under strict TTFT/TPOT SLOs, AFD sustains around 4k tokens/s of system throughput on DeepSeek-V3.2 across chat, coding, and agentic-coding workloads, where non-AFD deployments are infeasible. We distill concrete takeaways for jointly optimizing throughput and interactivity, including how to partition attention and FFN across GPUs as a function of workload and model architecture, providing design principles for current rack- and cluster-scale deployments as well as future disaggregated AI infrastructure.

agent app

Stars0

Forks0

HF Downloads—30d

Last commit—

Refreshed20h ago

Project healthUnknownNo activity data.

Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.

Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.

AgentHub Score

48 / 100

Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →

Active project

48Score

Growth

40C

Activity

30C

Documentation

70C+

Maturity

45C

Community

42C

Production

58C

GitHub stars · 90 days0 +0.0%

30d90d1y

Commit activity · 52 weeksActive contributor activity

LowHigh

JunSepDecMarNow

Practical assessment

Should you use it?

✓ Best for

Research and experimentation
Prototype development
Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

Active community
Open source
Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

Untested at scale without validation
Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

Review changelog before updating
Verify license for commercial use

Technical details

What's inside

Language—

License—

Sourcearxiv

Open source✗ No

Commercial use—

Docs—

Demo—

PaperarXiv ↗

AgentHub Score

Score 48/100

Below average

Alternatives

crewai

26.1k · Multi-Agent

autogen

42.7k · Multi-Agent

smolagents

11.2k · Coding

openai-agents-python

9.4k · Multi-Agent

Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——

Indexed by AgentHub crawler20h ago

Monitor for new releasesongoing