docs: add GPU support column to supported providers table

[curumore]

Fixes #1942

Adds a GPU support column to the supported providers table
to clearly indicate which providers support GPU nodes.

Summary by CodeRabbit

• Documentation
  • Added a GPU column to the Supported Providers table with per-provider GPU indicators in the header and rows.
  • Updated each provider’s GPU status (supported, unsupported, or N/A) while preserving Node Pools, DNS, and DNS healthchecks information.
  • Clarified that "N/A" denotes non-applicable or untested GPU support and adjusted table formatting for alignment.

_{✏️ Tip: You can customize this high-level summary in your review settings.}

[coderabbitai]

Walkthrough

Added a new "GPU" column to the Supported Providers table in README.md, populated per-provider GPU status indicators for AWS, Azure, GCP, OCI, Hetzner, Cloudflare, and OpenStack, adjusted table separators, and appended a note clarifying that N/A indicates non-applicable or untested GPU support.

Changes

Cohort / File(s)	Summary
Documentation — providers table README.md	Inserted a GPU column into the Supported Providers table, updated header separators and each provider row with GPU indicators (:heavy_check_mark:, :x:, N/A), and added a trailing note clarifying N/A.

Possibly related issues

• Docs: Add GPU support column to supported providers table claudie-config#17: Mirrors this README change by adding a GPU column and per-provider GPU entries in the providers table — same documentation update.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5

✅ Passed checks (5 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title 'docs: add GPU support column to supported providers table' accurately and clearly describes the main change in the PR.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	The PR successfully implements all core objectives from issue #1942: adds GPU column, populates provider statuses with check/cross/N/A markers, and includes clarifying note about N/A.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	All changes are directly related to the GPU support column objective; only README.md was modified with +11/-9 lines focused on the table update.
Docstring Coverage	✅ Passed	No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check.

_{✏️ Tip: You can configure your own custom pre-merge checks in the settings.}

---

---

📜 Recent review details

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 87cd20b and bfe753d.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)

• README.md

🚧 Files skipped from review as they are similar to previous changes (1)

• README.md

_{✏️ Tip: You can disable this entire section by setting review_details to false in your review settings.}

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[samuelstolicny]

Thanks for adding the GPU support column! I have a few questions about the testing methodology used for determining GPU support status.

I've tested Azure GPU support and it works correctly, but the PR marks it as :x: (not supported). Could you provide details on:

1. Azure: What testing was done? I was able to get GPU nodes working on Azure, so I'd like to understand why it's marked as unsupported.

2. OCI, OpenStack: Were these actually tested, or are they marked as :x: based on assumptions? It would be helpful to know:

   • Which specific instance types/configurations were tested
   • What errors or issues were encountered (if any)
   • Any logs or screenshots demonstrating the test results

Based on my testing:

• Azure: ✅ Works (should be :heavy_check_mark:)
• GCP: ❌ Confirmed not working
• OCI: Untested
• OpenStack: Untested

For untested providers, should we perhaps use a different indicator or add a footnote to clarify that some providers are "untested" rather than "confirmed not working"?

[curumore]

Thanks for the clarification and for testing Azure GPU support.

You’re right, the initial ❌ markings were not based on hands-on testing across all providers, which makes them misleading.

I’ve updated the table to:

Mark Azure as ✔️ based on your confirmation

Keep GCP as ❌ (tested and confirmed not working)

Mark OCI and OpenStack as N/A to indicate it has not been tested

Add a general footnote explaining that N/A means the feature is either not applicable for the provider or has not been tested yet, to avoid ambiguity across the table

Please let me know if this representation looks good to you.

[curumore]

Thanks for testing and for the suggested update! I’ve committed the changes.

[curumore]

Added Hetzner GPU support as suggested. Thanks for the clarification regarding static node pools.

[samuelstolicny]

Hi @curumore ! I just merged a fix for the CI pipeline in #1944 that fixes issues with fork PRs.
​To get the CI builds passing on this PR, you will need to rebase your forked branch onto the latest master branch from the upstream repository (berops/claudie). This will pull in the CI pipeline fixes that allow the workflow to run properly for PRs from forks. After that we can finally merge this PR.

[curumore]

Thanks for the CI fix! I’ve rebased the branch onto the latest upstream master and re-applied the suggested changes. CI should be running correctly now.

Requested changes were implemented

[samuelstolicny]

Thanks @curumore for your contribution