record that RunPod should be one provider of several, not the only one
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:Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_014T3rZozi1Ehk96NG1WesgC
Showing
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment