Local LLM Deployment for SOC: How Many Incidents Can One NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Handle?

In the second part of the experiment, R-Vision analysts tested the Qwen3.5-122B-A10B-GPTQ model running locally with vLLM on an NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q GPU with 96 GB VRAM. The evaluation moved from synthetic stress tests to realistic SOC workloads using anonymized real incidents from their internal operations center. Tasks included incident ranking, summarization, similarity search, retrospective analysis, and preliminary verdict generation within the R-Vision SOAR orchestration pipeline. Two load scenarios were modeled: a calm shift with 10-15 incidents per hour handled by 3-5 L1/L2 analysts, and a peak scenario with 50-100 incidents arriving in a short period involving 5-7 analysts. Resources were split between a high-priority interactive chat pool and a lower-priority background SOAR pool using an AI Gateway layer to manage queues, context length, and KV-cache usage. Results showed that one GPU can process up to 5 incidents simultaneously in the background pipeline, delivering a theoretical maximum throughput of 300 incidents per hour under the tested conditions and prompt profiles.

HabrTranslated from Russian

Read at source

In the second part of their experiment, analysts from R-Vision evaluated how a locally deployed large language model performs under realistic SOC workloads rather than isolated laboratory benchmarks. The configuration remained consistent with Part 1: the Qwen3.5-122B-A10B-GPTQ model served by vLLM on an NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q GPU equipped with 96 GB of video memory.

The team shifted focus from measuring raw concurrency and generation speed to simulating actual Security Operations Center operations. Real anonymized incidents from their internal SOC were used instead of synthetic test cases. The model handled five core tasks: ranking open incidents by priority, summarizing key events and assets, searching for similar recent incidents, performing retrospective searches across deeper history, and generating preliminary verdicts based on prior steps.

Two distinct load profiles were tested. In a calm shift scenario, 3–5 L1/L2 analysts managed a steady flow of 10–15 incidents per hour. Background SOAR orchestration typically processed one or two incidents concurrently, generating up to six parallel requests during the data-collection phase. Interactive analyst chats added another two to three concurrent sessions, keeping overall concurrency between 8 and 12 requests.

Under peak conditions, such as a mass phishing campaign, 5–7 analysts faced 50–100 incidents arriving rapidly. When all 16 sequences were allocated to the background pipeline, up to four incidents could be processed simultaneously on the first phase (12 requests). With five sequences reserved for interactive work, three incidents could run in parallel. A full enrichment cycle of approximately 60 seconds allowed the queue of 50 incidents to be cleared in roughly 15–20 minutes.

To prevent interactive sessions from starving background tasks, an AI Gateway layer was introduced. It separated traffic into two pools: a high-priority “Interactive” pool limited to five concurrent requests with context up to 120k tokens, and a lower-priority “Background SOAR” pool supporting up to 11 concurrent requests with shorter contexts. The gateway also enforced context-length limits and dynamic prioritization to protect KV-cache capacity.

The experiment confirmed that one RTX PRO 6000 can sustain a background throughput of five incidents per minute, equating to 300 incidents per hour or 7,200 per day, when processing typical 10k–20k token incidents. The Mixture-of-Experts architecture of Qwen3.5-122B-A10B delivered effective intelligence close to a 122B model while maintaining generation speeds comparable to a 10B model, and disabling the thinking mode further improved responsiveness without sacrificing verdict quality for SOC tasks.

Meridian digestThe week's most consequential security stories, distilled into one briefing.See the digest

More in AI Security

Logical Argument Claims Full Alignment of Superintelligent AGI Is Fundamentally Impossible
Claude Account Bans Linked to IP Reputation, Device Environment and Payment Channels, But No Confirmed Formula
Local LLMs in AppSec: What Open Tools and Models Can Handle in Application Security