Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

bid script: set different price based on the GPU model requested #125

Closed
andy108369 opened this issue Sep 14, 2023 · 2 comments
Closed

bid script: set different price based on the GPU model requested #125

andy108369 opened this issue Sep 14, 2023 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@andy108369
Copy link
Contributor

@chainzero has experimented with the provider per GPU model bid/pricing in a revised scripting logic I created and seems to work nicely.
He modified the default bid script with per GPU model pricing here:


It would be extremely beneficial for the bid script to have the capability to identify the specific GPU that will be allocated when a deployment opts (in SDL) for the "DEFAULT" (*) card model setting.

In the absence of this functionality, I suggest we configure the TARGET_GPU_DEFAULT to the highest-value GPU available from providers. Although this method is not ideal, it will serve as an adequate interim solution.

I'll explore the option of configuring pricing variables for CPU, memory, storage, various storage types (pers.storage aka ceph), leased IPs (aka metallb), ports, and GPU directly through the Akash provider's Helm chart variables. This way, providers would only need to update the provider.yaml file and avoid having to modify the bid price script.

Additionally, I need to test the AKASH_BID_PRICE_SCRIPT_PROCESS_TIMEOUT parameter. Its default value is set at 5 seconds, which seems a bit too short. I'm considering adjusting it to 10 seconds, especially since the API query for acquiring the AKT price from the Osmosis/CoinGecko API every 60 minutes can sometimes exceed the default 5-second timeout.

@andy108369 andy108369 self-assigned this Sep 14, 2023
@andy108369
Copy link
Contributor Author

@andy108369
Copy link
Contributor Author

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant