Image
Blogs
Timothy Carter
Author
Blog Thumbnail
5/12/2025

Building an Async Prompt Queue for High-Volume LLM Serving

If you’ve ever waited in a line that never seems to shrink—whether at the grocery store or your local coffee shop—you know how frustrating bottlenecks can be. The same principle applies to high-volume Large Language Model (LLM) requests. If you’re running a service that processes (or generates) content via LLMs in real time, you might find yourself dealing with unpredictable spikes in traffic. A sudden influx of prompt submissions can overwhelm your application’s resources, resulting in sluggish performance or even downtime.
 
This is where an asynchronous (async) prompt queue comes to the rescue. Rather than persisting in a synchronous, “everything-at-once” mindset—where each request must wait for the model to finish generating a response—an async queue allows your system to smoothly juggle many tasks at once. For a software development team tasked with maintaining a rapid, stable environment, building an async architecture may well be the difference between meltdown and success.
 

Understanding the Concurrency Challenge

 
Before we dive deep, let’s clarify what concurrency challenges are common in LLM-serving environments. When requests come in all at once, a synchronous approach (e.g., processing requests in a single thread) has to handle them in a linear, sequential fashion: queue up, wait, process, respond. This is a surefire way to create delays, especially when each request can take a decent chunk of time for an LLM to process.
 
By contrast, asynchronous processing doesn’t wait for one task to finish before starting the next. Instead, it’ll pass the job to a separate worker or thread, then poll or check back for completion. The initial inbound request just gets an acknowledgement—like, “Hey, we got your prompt. Now, we’ll let you know when it’s complete.” This design pattern can yield dramatic improvements in throughput, because you’re no longer holding up the entire pipeline while one request finishes.
 
When done right, an async approach also provides a more graceful way to handle request bursts. You can let your concurrency layer spin up more workers (within reason) so you aren’t forced to rely on a single queue or a single node.
 

Designing Your Queue Architecture

 
A good place to start is by breaking your system into two main components: the “frontend” that accepts requests and the “backend” that processes them. Instead of processing all LLM requests right in the frontend, you offload those requests to a separate queue. The high-level workflow might look something like this:
 
  • The user sends a prompt.
  • The request hits your frontend service, which immediately stores or publishes that request into a message queue (like RabbitMQ, Apache Kafka, or even a Redis-based queue).
  • The frontend returns a “received” status to the user—optionally with a request ID they can use to check the status or fetch the completed result.
  • One (or more) workers pull requests from the queue, call the LLM API (or do local inference), and store the result in a separate data store or cache.
  • The user returns later (or is notified through a separate callback mechanism) to retrieve the final result associated with their request ID.
    •  
    This decoupled approach ensures the user-facing part stays snappy, with minimal downtime. You might also add some logic to handle how many concurrent prompts you allow, ensuring you don’t chew through GPUs or inference servers at a rate that’ll make your monthly hosting bill skyrocket.
     

    Tools and Frameworks You Might Consider

     
    When it’s time to pick tools, think about your traffic patterns, your team’s skill set, and your deployment environment. For instance, if your team lives and breathes Node.js, you might stand up a solution where you rely on something like BullMQ for queueing, which works neatly with Redis. If your environment is more enterprise-level with microservice-based architecture, a high-throughput system like Apache Kafka is often a strong contender.
     
    For concurrency, you can write your workers in a language that excels at async I/O. Node.js is a common choice, but Go is also a crowd favorite for concurrency. Python has grown significantly in concurrency handling, particularly with frameworks like FastAPI and libraries such as asyncio. The biggest tip here is to avoid re-inventing the wheel. Established message queues have years of production testing and robust community support.
     
    They can handle tasks like message acknowledgements, ensuring no request is lost if a worker crashes. They’ll also often let you set up advanced routing or partitioning in case you have different LLMs or model versions for different tasks.
     

    Handling Potential Pitfalls

     
  • Duplicate Requests: Sometimes, a user might hit submit multiple times or refresh the page. You can handle such cases by storing a short-lived token or ID on the client side. If you see that ID again, you know it’s a duplicate.
  • Out-of-Memory Errors: If you scale concurrency without care, you could run out of memory on your servers, especially when workloads are GPU-intensive. Build in logic for rate limiting or add a capacity check that ensures the system doesn’t bite off more than it can chew.
  • Timeout Management: Not every request will succeed quickly. If you’re calling external LLM APIs, you may end up with timeouts or partial results. Have a strategy for automatically retrying the prompt or returning an error message that the user can interpret.
  • Poison Message Handling: In message queues, a “poison” message is one that keeps failing repeatedly. You should consider a dead-letter queue (DLQ) so that repeated failures automatically divert to a separate queue. This prevents your entire pipeline from getting stuck.
  • Monitoring and Logging: Keep track of request volumes, error rates, and system load. Tools like Prometheus and Grafana can help you set up detailed dashboards showing queue length, worker status, and response times. Proper logging across all stages ensures you’ll know where things broke if (and when) trouble hits.
    •  

    Testing and Optimizing Your Queue

     
    Once you’ve built your initial queue-based environment, it’s tempting to declare victory. But for truly high-volume LLM serving, you’ll want to test and iterate. Here are some steps:
     
  • Load Testing: Use tools like Locust, JMeter, or k6 to simulate large volumes of requests hitting your system. This will reveal your bottlenecks—whether it’s the queue, the database, or the actual LLM API calls.
  • Stress Testing: Push the system beyond what you expect in real-world usage. This might mean simulating double your normal traffic to see if your system remains stable or gracefully degrades.
  • Horizontal vs. Vertical Scaling: Once you know your bottlenecks, decide whether scaling horizontally (adding more nodes or workers) or vertically (beefing up your machine’s resources) is a better approach. Often, horizontal scaling for your worker nodes is the best route, since it’s more flexible.
  • Tuning Model Settings: For LLM inference, remember that time-intensive operations can cause your queue to back up. If you have the luxury of controlling parameters (e.g., model size, token limit), you might find that slightly smaller or more optimized models handle large volumes more gracefully.
    •  

    Where Alerts and Observability Fit In

     
    An async system sounds wonderful until something quietly fails in the background, leaving you with a silent backlog of unfulfilled prompts. That’s why you need strong alerting and observability. Setting thresholds for alerts (like if your queue length goes past a certain number, or if worker success rates drop below 95%) gives you a chance to fix the issue before it spirals.
     
    Additionally, building robust monitoring around your entire pipeline helps you trace requests from the frontend layer all the way to the LLM worker and back. This end-to-end tracing can be invaluable when diagnosing slow performance or random errors.
     

    Security Considerations

     
    When you’re dealing with user-submitted prompts, there’s always a chance for malicious input. While you’re primarily focusing on concurrency, don’t forget to sanitize user inputs, implement rate-limiting, and be mindful of data privacy constraints—especially if your system is handling sensitive requests.
     
  • Encrypt at Rest: Store request data, IDs, and user info in encrypted form if you’re dealing with sensitive content.
  • Validate Prompt Size: A sudden barrage of extremely long prompts might point to a denial-of-service attempt.
  • Use Secure Channels: Ensure all communication between your frontend, queue, and workers is secured via TLS to ward off man-in-the-middle attacks.
    •  

    Implementation Tips from Real-World Battles

     
    If you talk to AI engineers who’ve built high-volume prompt systems, you’ll notice some recurring best practices:
     
  • Use a “fast” path for simple queries: Not every request needs the same heavyweight model. If you can route simpler prompts to a cheaper or smaller LLM, you free up resources for bigger tasks.
  • Implement backoff strategies for retries: If you immediately retry a failing request, you could inadvertently trigger an avalanche effect. A well-designed exponential backoff can keep your system from thrashing.
  • Keep your “frontend” layer minimal and stateless: This helps you scale horizontally without worrying about sticky sessions or in-memory queues.
    • Author
    Timothy Carter
    Timothy Carter is the Chief Revenue Officer. Tim leads all revenue-generation activities for marketing and software development activities. He has helped to scale sales teams with the right mix of hustle and finesse. Based in Seattle, Washington, Tim enjoys spending time in Hawaii with family and playing disc golf.