I am in similar situation as the this post.

I am a foreign PhD student in the Netherlands. My work is related to computer vision. Here, each PhD student typically has two supervisors, a senior professor as promoter and a young lecturer/prof as daily supervisor. Candidates typically gets to meet with daily supervisor once weekly and with promoter once monthly but this varies.

Just after my qualifier (around a year mark), we decided to work on something and eventually write a paper once we have the results. The adequate infrastructure required for large scale DL work isn't there (We have a HPC with a single 11GB GPU and the PhD students generally fight over to get access. There is no system admin to manage infrastructure so often the people floods the disk to full and other mismanagement issues were there.) So we had to make a few compromise to run the model on the infrastructure we have. However, I worked as per the discussion then prepared the manuscript. My daily supervisor instructed me to finalize the draft between two of us first then send it to the promoter. The draft eventually improved after couple of iterations. We decided to send it the promoter for review after one iteration he asks for a meeting with all three of us. At that meeting, the promoter started very harshly indicating my work is garbage and not at all publication worthy. But he did not stop there, showing me how poor the quality / acceptance rate of the articles from my country is and how I am also following the same trend. I understand the criticism of my work but this hit me as racist, at least subtly. I did not argue although it completely broke my morale. According to him, the work was so useless that it can't improved to become something meaningful although I am open to try.

I decided to drop that work and move on to one of my main objective. I worked hard and developed some decently novel. I am stuck for two weeks to get access to the GPU. Eventually when I got it I found out a single GPU is not sufficient to run the model. There were some discussion regarding purchasing new GPU from past year but nothing actually happened. I suspect that is partly because people in charge (including my supervisors) do not deeply understand the implementation specific side of DL, they mostly go with the current trend of DL and happy with all those hand waving discussions over shiny new paper achieving 0.01% improvement and occasionally poking students why we are not able to do something like those.

Apart from these, I have issues regarding data collection and field visit. Thanks to COVID, all the field visits have been canceled and no chance of happening this year. I am kind of clueless at this point. I am at one and half year mark with my second year review due this month. It feels like I am at a turning point. I did not lose hope on my dream of doing a PhD just that current conditions do not seem in favor of me. Even if I leave I am open to give it another try. Joining industry is the other option but I try not to depend too much on that option since I am a foreign student and may not be allowed at all to work here.

That being said, I just need some opinions to make sure I am not being mislead here by my own personal bias. Secondly, if I decide to apply again for PhD somewhere else or apply for job, how this will be perceived by the potential supervisors or recruiters? Will it negatively influence my application? Learning from this experience, some tips regarding finding a suitable supervisor would also help me a lot.

P. S. - Sorry for the long post.