3 ms·
It is clickbait, the real title should be "AWS vs. GCP on-demand provisioning of GPU resources performance is wildly different". That said, while I agree that
by iLoveOncall 4y ago
It is clickbait, the real title should be "AWS vs. GCP on-demand provisioning of GPU resources performance is wildly different".
That said, while I agree that launch time and provisioning error rate are not sufficient to define reliability, they are definitely a part of it.
- tl_donson 4y ago“ AWS vs. GCP on-demand provisioning of GPU resources performance is wildly different” yeah i guess it does make sense that one didn’t win the a/b test
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lelandfe 4y ago> wildly different For this, I'd prefer a title that lets me draw my own conclusions. 84 errors out of 3000 doesn't sound awful to me...? But what do I know – maybe just give me the data: "1 in 3000 GPUs fail to spawn on AWS. GCP: 84" "Time to provision GPU with AWS: 11.4s. GCP: 42.6s" "GCP >4x avg. time to provision GPU than AWS" "Provisioning on GCP both slower and more error-prone than AWS"
- esrauch 4y ago84 of 3000 failed is only "one nine"
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]