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

Replace CodeCarbon with simpler API #751

Open
kzscisoft opened this issue Mar 7, 2025 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #752
Open

Replace CodeCarbon with simpler API #751

kzscisoft opened this issue Mar 7, 2025 · 0 comments · May be fixed by #752
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request improvement
Milestone

Comments

@kzscisoft
Copy link
Collaborator

Following on from #735

  • CodeCarbon does not actually provide any useful output:
    • Unless the user has one of the Intel monitoring tools installed the API defaults to a flat 50% CPU usage.
    • It uses CO2 Signal API behind the scenes, if it fails to retrieve a value it defaults to a fixed value taken from 2019!
    • We do not use 95% of the functionality, CC is designed to be hosted as a server, we do not need this.
    • The way we are currently using it is via the low level API which is not documented and likely to change frequently.
  • After looking into this I found it was a lot easier for us to do this ourselves. Not only that we can improve the measured values to be more representative by monitoring CPU percentage as we do already for resource metrics.
@kzscisoft kzscisoft added enhancement New feature or request improvement labels Mar 7, 2025
@kzscisoft kzscisoft self-assigned this Mar 7, 2025
@kzscisoft kzscisoft linked a pull request Mar 7, 2025 that will close this issue
4 tasks
@kzscisoft kzscisoft linked a pull request Mar 7, 2025 that will close this issue
4 tasks
@kzscisoft kzscisoft added this to the v2.1.0-rc1 milestone Mar 7, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request improvement
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

1 participant