FAQ

Top 5 AI-cloud objections, answered

The five concerns that come up on every prospective call — noisy-neighbor isolation, vendor lock-in, hidden egress / overage fees, support responsiveness, and compliance posture — with a short answer to each and pointers into the V1 docs that back them up.

Objections

What platform teams push back on, and what we say back

Drawn from live demos and sales calls with platform engineers and CTOs at GPU-heavy companies.

1. “Will my jobs get throttled by noisy neighbors on a shared cluster?”

Noisy-neighbor isolation is enforced at the scheduler level, not by hope. GPUForge's scheduler runs a tenant-quota check on every cycle (every 30 seconds): for each job, gpu_in_use + gpu_count ≤ gpu_quota is evaluated against the tenant's quota, and jobs that fail the check stay queued or flip to blocked with block_reason = quota rather than stealing capacity from another tenant. The full quota-enforcement flow, atomic-allocation guarantees, and per-tenant alarm thresholds (including the quota_breach warning at >90%) are documented in the architecture overview, which walks the production stack and explains where the boundary is enforced.

2. “Are we going to get locked into one deployment surface?”

GPUForge targets three surfaces — EKS on AWS, GKE on GCP, and on-prem bare metal / VM with SLURM — and the same control plane runs across all three. Our deployment research walks the trade-offs side-by-side, including price-per-hour on each, GPU availability and quota lead times (especially for H100 / p5), SLURM+K8s fit, air-gapped fit, and egress. Pick EKS when your data lives in AWS, GKE when GCP-native services are central, and on-prem when data sovereignty or air-gap is a hard requirement. Read the full comparison in the deployment insights page.

3. “Will we get hit with hidden egress and overage fees?”

Costs on the deployment surface you choose are visible end-to-end. On managed Kubernetes (EKS / GKE), per-GB egress is billed by the cloud provider after a monthly free tier — cloud-to-same-region or cross-AZ is commonly free, cross-region is not, and cloud-to-cloud traffic to another provider bills at that provider's internet-egress rate. On on-prem, zero egress — every byte of telemetry, dataset, and checkpoint stays inside the customer network. The comparison table sets all of this out explicitly across the three surfaces. For the full DIY-vs-GPUForge pricing breakdown, see our H100 vs H200 TCO comparison.

4. “What happens when something breaks at 2am — who actually responds?”

The support surface is the same as the operations surface: alerting with hysteresis and deduplication is documented in the HLD, the horizontal-scale ceiling is published (~50 operators, ~200 tenants, ~10,000 GPUs per instance before a service split is needed), and the production auth roadmap (SSO/SAML for operators, JWT-based tenant auth, RBAC with per-tenant scopes, OAuth2 for cloud-provider creds) is laid out alongside the rest of the operational design. Everything we promise operationally is in writing there — not in a marketing deck.

See · /docs/hld

5. “Can we prove what your compliance posture actually is, in writing?”

Yes — the low-level design is the authoritative source. The LLD covers the full security model: hashed API keys (SHA-256 of the raw key, hex, stored with revoked_at IS NULL; the raw key is returned once at creation and never persisted), the auth middleware chain in server.js, the session model, and the row-level constraints that bind roles to endpoints. Every endpoint's authentication requirement (Auth: required / Auth: optional / Auth: none) is annotated on the API page.

See · /docs/lld

Still on the fence? Try the live demo.

The live dashboard runs a seeded multi-tenant fleet — same scheduler, same quota enforcement, same billing pipeline — so you can see the isolation story end-to-end before committing. Or grab the HLD/LLD papers and bring them to your security review.

Try the demo → Read the Docs →