• Stefy Lanza (nextime / spora )'s avatar
    record that RunPod should be one provider of several, not the only one · 3f7f3a0f
    Stefy Lanza (nextime / spora ) authored
    Scaleway, Exoscale, OVHcloud and Hyperstack all rent GPUs by the hour or the
    second, and nothing about the fleet logic is really RunPod-shaped. Written
    down now so the seam does not have to be re-derived later; none of it is
    built.
    
    The point worth keeping: the provider-specific part is small. Demand-based
    growth, the reaper, budgets, the ledger, spillover, shared pools, LoRA
    fan-out and region selection all sit above the provider and ask it for about
    eight things, which RunpodClient already is -- ping, a catalogue with VRAM
    and price, create, get/list, wait_ready, stop/terminate, logs, volumes. A
    second provider is a second client plus a per-pool choice, not a second
    orchestrator.
    
    The section also lists what will NOT port, because the §10 notes were all
    found live and most are categories rather than one provider's quirk: an
    undocumented image size ceiling, a boot budget that has to cover the image
    pull, how the port is reached (proxy vs direct TCP vs a load balancer with
    its own idle timeout), rate limits in their own units, terminal states that
    do not look terminal, and region-scoped storage.
    
    Indexed from docs/README.md so it is findable without reading to the end of
    an 890-line file.
    Co-Authored-By: 's avatarClaude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
    Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_014T3rZozi1Ehk96NG1WesgC
    3f7f3a0f
runpod.md 51.8 KB