Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Networks in cloud data centers were designed around loosely coupled, request-response workloads generating predominantly north-to-south traffic, yet distributed machine learning training demands sustained, tightly synchronized east-to-west communication across large accelerator clusters. While prior work has addressed individual components of this problem — collective communication algorithms, transport protocols, and specific topology deployments — no unified framework has synthesized these threads into a structured architectural comparison spanning the full spectrum from general-purpose cloud to purpose-built ML training infrastructure. This paper fills that gap through a systematization of knowledge on the network architectural requirements of distributed ML training, synthesizing peer-reviewed literature from 2013 to 2024. Sources were selected through a keyword-based search of ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, and USENIX proceedings, filtered by deployment scale and relevance to network performance. The analysis characterizes communication patterns across data-parallel, tensor-parallel, and pipeline-parallel training strategies; reviews leaf-spine, multi-rail, and optical circuit-switched topologies; and examines congestion dynamics arising from collective communication operations at scale. Evidence from the synthesized literature suggests that purpose-built ML training networks achieve substantially higher cluster efficiency than general-purpose cloud fabrics, and that elevated per-operation latency introduces measurable overhead accumulating across multi-day training runs. A production deployment scenario and practical design recommendations organized by cluster scale tier are also presented.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vijaya Bhaskar Methuku (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: