← All domains

Reliability & OperationsView domain

APRF-28

Performance & SLO Engineering

Latency, throughput, and error budgets for AI features—SRE discipline applied to GenAI.

Purpose

Define SLIs/SLOs for AI latency, availability, and quality signals; manage error budgets so AI features meet user experience and capacity targets.

Engineering philosophy

If it is not measured with an SLO, it is not operationally owned. Stochastic systems still need latency and quality budgets.

Why it matters

Unbounded TTFT, streaming stalls, and silent quality burn destroy UX and hide regressions that “availability” alone will not catch.

Common failures

  • No p95/p99 latency targets for model calls
  • Quality treated as a one-time eval, not an online SLO
  • No error budget for AI feature releases
  • Capacity planning ignores bursty agent tool loops

Mandatory checks

Gate controls. Each check is pass/fail via artifact + pass condition. Expected from the annotated capability level when the system meets the minimum criticality tier.

  • PERF-M1L3 · DefinedTier 2 · Productionmanual

    Critical AI user journeys shall have documented latency and availability SLOs

    Artifact
    SLO catalog with numeric targets per journey
    Pass condition
    100% of journeys marked critical have availability % and latency percentile targets recorded
  • PERF-M2L3 · DefinedTier 2 · Productionhybrid

    Online dashboards shall track AI latency, error, and at least one quality or task-success signal

    Artifact
    Dashboard URLs/config showing latency, error, and quality/task-success panels
    Pass condition
    Dashboard panels for latency, error rate, and ≥1 quality/task-success signal are live with freshness ≤ 15 minutes
  • PERF-M3L3 · DefinedTier 2 · Productionhybrid

    Alerting shall exist when SLOs burn beyond defined thresholds

    Artifact
    Burn-rate or SLO alert policies
    Pass condition
    Alert policies exist for each critical journey SLO; alert test or documented fire demonstrates notification path works

Evidence required

  • SLO definitions for AI journeys
  • Dashboard and alert configuration
  • Recent burn-rate or incident examples (redacted)

Severity & risk

Severity
high
Impact if violated
Risk level
medium
Typical residual risk (impact × likelihood)

Engineering best practices

  • Separate SLOs for AI features vs core non-AI paths
  • Budget tokens and wall-clock together
  • Correlate performance regressions with model/prompt version changes

Automatic validations

  • Synthetic latency probes
  • Burn-rate alerts
  • CI performance budgets for critical paths where feasible

Manual validations

  • Quarterly SLO review with product owners
  • Post-incident SLO recalibration

Examples

  • Chat p95 TTFT < 1.5s with error-budget policy that freezes prompt experiments when burned
  • Agent task-success rate tracked as a quality SLO alongside HTTP availability

References

Crosswalks

  • MEASURE Measure

    NIST AI Risk Management Framework · supports

  • §9 Performance evaluation

    ISO/IEC 42001 · supports

  • LLM10 Unbounded Consumption

    OWASP Top 10 for Large Language Model Applications · supports

  • A1 Availability

    SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria · evidence-for

  • Reliability Reliability

    AWS Well-Architected Framework · aligns-with

  • Performance Efficiency Performance Efficiency

    AWS Well-Architected Framework · partial

Future evolution

Standard GenAI SLI catalogs (TTFT, tool-loop duration, citation accuracy) across ecosystems.