LoRA mode

Choose LoRA or QLoRA from the base-weight budget

LoRA reduces the number of trainable parameters, while QLoRA also changes the frozen base-weight footprint. Neither choice removes the need to plan activations.

Separate frozen base memory from trainable state

The base model remains present during adapter training. LoRA adds small trainable matrices, while a quantized base can materially reduce the persistent weight portion of the memory plan.

Use the mode to solve the actual constraint

If the base weights leave too little room for a useful training setup, compare a QLoRA baseline. If the base fits with room for activations, compare the simpler LoRA path at the same sequence and micro-batch target.

Keep the workload fixed while comparing

Use the same model size, sequence length, micro-batch size, and GPU capacity in both planner modes. That makes the source of the capacity difference explicit.

Continue planning

Test this memory constraint with a live capacity plan.

Editorial record

Maintained by Make Your Own Tools to turn “Fit an LLM workload” into a defined weights, context or activations, runtime reserve, and the next hardware boundary. The references below provide the technical context for this planning path. Its calculation rules and planning assumptions are documented in the methodology, and affected calculations pass regression checks before the review date advances.

Last reviewed
Evidence set
4 primary references
Calculation coverage
3 affected rules checked
Planning scope
LoRA and QLoRA capacity planning from the frozen base-model footprint.
Next check
Carry the comparison into the exact model, PEFT configuration, quantization path, optimizer, runtime, and hardware setup.