When Is Availability-Aware Training Worth It? A Benchmark and Empirical Study of Interruption-Resilient Optimization Under Predictable Compute Schedules

Abstract

Training under non-stationary but predictable compute availability (satellites under eclipse, duty-cycled edge devices, power-capped datacenters) is often framed as needing specialized, availability-aware optimizers. We test that premise. We release OrbitTrace, a benchmark of 50 physics-grounded availability traces from SGP4 propagation of live two-line element sets across three orbital regimes, and ask a falsifiable question: when an availability gap interrupts training, is a specialized resumption strategy worth it, or is competent checkpoint-and-resume enough? Our central finding: when optimizer state can be preserved across a gap, the gap is essentially free. A strong checkpoint baseline that restores full optimizer state and indexes its learning-rate schedule in effective (active) time matches uninterrupted training to within data-ordering noise on CIFAR-10/ResNet-18, and exactly on a GPT-2/AdamW task. Advantages previously reported for availability-aware methods, including our own three-pillar method AAT, arise almost entirely from comparison against a weak baseline that indexes its schedule on wall-clock time. Against the strong baseline, reactive adaptation provides no advantage across stationary, optimizer-state-loss, and distribution-drift regimes. We isolate one narrow regime where it helps: for large models whose optimizer state cannot be persisted across gaps and that are interrupted by frequent, short pauses, reconstructing a decayed optimizer moment recovers only ~21% of the state-loss penalty on average (and not robustly across seeds); this vanishes for eclipse-scale gaps, where the decayed moment is indistinguishable from zero. Our contributions are a benchmark, a strong reproducible baseline protocol, and a clear characterization of when interruption-resilient optimization is worth its complexity, and when it is not.