For luma ai infrastructure and model engineering teams
Luma generation failed: request outcome, queue delay or backend worker?
Keep customer-visible generation status separate from approved internal worker evidence. Replay a resolved incident without turning an old status report into a current outage claim.
Free 30-day Team evaluation. No card or automatic subscription. Work email verification required.
Replay a resolved Luma AI workflow incident
Upload your log file. Review the selected evidence and masking, then run diagnosis. Keep the original log for any follow-up questions.
Before uploading, review cloud data handling and local options.
Upload your log file. Large files are processed in your browser. Only selected evidence is submitted when you run diagnosis.
Try Denpex for 30 days. FREE.
No credit card. No automatic subscription. See whether Denpex helps with an incident you already understand.
Start your free 30-day Team evaluation
Up to 50 diagnoses a day for 30 days. Verify your work email to activate an eligible company evaluation, then replay a resolved incident and compare the evidence and next steps with your team's confirmed cause.
What a useful evaluation should establish
Compare one incident your team has already resolved with the first failure, quoted evidence and remaining questions. Begin with this question: Was the request rejected or did an accepted generation fail? Only assign a process, device or recovery state when the submitted evidence establishes it.
Was the request rejected or did an accepted generation fail?
Evidence to compare: Redacted request identifier, response status and asynchronous generation outcome.
Validation and asynchronous execution have different boundaries. Preserve the actual outcome before interpreting a request failure as interrupted GPU work.
Was the worker waiting on an artifact or actively executing?
Evidence to compare: Approved backend worker timeline, artifact-read errors and generation-state transitions.
The historical storage incident motivates a comparison, not a diagnosis of a new request. Without matching internal evidence, retain the backend cause as unknown.
Does the incident belong to Ray2 or a newer deployment?
Evidence to compare: Model version, incident timestamps and the relevant published service status.
A resolved older incident cannot establish the state of a newer model. Use timestamps and model identity before connecting customer symptoms to a service-level event.
Use Denpex alongside your existing telemetry tools to investigate submitted incident evidence. With monitoring configured on a supported plan, detected failures can trigger alerts and an automatic diagnosis from the captured evidence.
Inside Denpex
See the evidence, not just the claim
Follow the causal chain, inspect the quoted evidence and prepare the next handoff. These actual product captures use founder-account examples and the VS Code extension, with the source identified under each image. Open a capture to inspect it at full size.
Follow the failure through the cascade
Prepare the hardware escalation
Ask for the evidence that is missing
Keep the investigation in the editor
