Ajay tripathy fix gpucost #2523
Conversation
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
| @@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ func (c *CSVProvider) NodePricing(key models.Key) (*models.Node, models.PricingM | |||
| } | |||
| } | |||
| totalCost := hourly * float64(count) | |||
| node.GPUCost = fmt.Sprintf("%f", totalCost) | |||
| node.GPUCost = fmt.Sprintf("%f", hourly) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If this has to be modified, doesn't the line a little below
node.Cost = fmt.Sprintf("%f", nc+totalCost)
have to be modified?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, I don't understand why this isn't totalCost -- if there are multiple GPUs, shouldn't the cost be multiplied? Or is this because GPUClassPricing contains prices that total the GPUs on a node, rather than breaking them out individually?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, don't think so. node.GPUCost is unit cost of a GPU; node.Cost is totalCost
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the field that gets transformed into node_gpu_hourly_cost . Its sister queries are node_cpu_hourly_cost and node_ram_hourly_cost which are unit prices per 1cpu and 1GB RAM.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, don't think so. node.GPUCost is unit cost of a GPU; node.Cost is totalCost
Oh, huh, that's a little confusing; sorry I think I thought we were in a different part of the Opencost codebase. Now that I see we're in provider land, this makes more sense.
This is the field that gets transformed into node_gpu_hourly_cost . Its sister queries are node_cpu_hourly_cost and node_ram_hourly_cost which are unit prices per 1cpu and 1GB RAM.
Perfect, this makes way more sense now.
cliffcolvin
force-pushed
the
AjayTripathy-fix-gpucost
branch
from
26479f5
to
ef1b418
Compare
|
What does this PR change?
Does this PR relate to any other PRs?
How will this PR impact users?
Does this PR address any GitHub or Zendesk issues?
How was this PR tested?
Does this PR require changes to documentation?
Have you labeled this PR and its corresponding Issue as "next release" if it should be part of the next OpenCost release? If not, why not?