docs: Fix typos and remove incomplete section from vllm multinode doc

[rmccorm4]

Overview:

• Fixes typo/swap with prefill/decode command references
• Removes incomplete/incorrect section at the bottom

Details:

This doc may no longer be relevant at all - but just cleaning up low hanging fruit that are incorrect about it for now.

Where should the reviewer start?

Related Issues: (use one of the action keywords Closes / Fixes / Resolves / Relates to)

• closes GitHub issue: #xxx

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Revised multi-node deployment guide: Node 1 now runs ingress and a decode worker; Node 2 runs a prefill worker.
  • Removed the Large Model Deployment section and initial tensor-parallel setup steps to reflect current recommendations.
  • Clarified role assignments, updated terminology, and streamlined setup steps for greater accuracy and ease of use.

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Documentation for vLLM multi-node deployment was revised: Node 1 role changed to “ingress and decode worker,” Node 2 to “prefill worker,” and the Large Model Deployment section (including initial tensor-parallel setup) was removed.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary of Changes
Docs — vLLM multi-node docs/backends/vllm/multi-node.md	Updated node role descriptions (Node 1: ingress+decode; Node 2: prefill). Removed the Large Model Deployment section and associated tensor-parallel setup instructions. No API or export changes.

Estimated code review effort

🎯 1 (Trivial) | ⏱️ ~2 minutes

Poem

A whisk of ears, I hop through docs,
Node one decodes, node two prelocks.
Large models trimmed, the paths made clear,
Prefill hums softly, decode draws near.
With tidy trails and lighter load—
I thump approval down the road. 🐇✨

Pre-merge checks

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Description Check	⚠️ Warning	The pull request description follows the required template structure by including Overview, Details, Where should the reviewer start, and Related Issues sections, but the reviewer start section is left blank and the issue reference remains a placeholder, indicating missing essential details for guidance.	Please specify the files or lines reviewers should focus on under the “Where should the reviewer start?” section and replace the placeholder “#xxx” with a real issue number or remove the section if there are no related issues.

✅ Passed checks (2 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Title Check	✅ Passed	The title clearly identifies the documentation file being updated and succinctly describes the main fixes of reference swaps and removal of an incomplete section, matching the primary changes in the pull request.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changes. Docstring coverage check skipped.

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1f92dd5 and 300fc71.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• docs/backends/vllm/multi-node.md (2 hunks)

⏰ Context from checks skipped due to timeout of 90000ms. You can increase the timeout in your CodeRabbit configuration to a maximum of 15 minutes (900000ms). (1)

• GitHub Check: Build and Test - dynamo

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}