If I'm reading this right, this is (really solid) future planning but won't help with the current outages?

I'd have thought so from the headline + initial content but then they say that the horizontal scale techniques are basically carrying over from the existing architecture (where it seems the problem is?) and this is mostly to help with what they call "vertical scale" (intra-repo scalability). They also admit right after that the most active repos today will receive short bursts of at most dozens of writes.

So this seems like really useful planning for a near future that likely helps prevent more issues but isn't really meant to help current issues. Am I reading this right?

Of course improvements like this are always useful either way. Not dunking here at all.

▲

rockwotj 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

personally I see more issues with actions over pushing

▲

Walf 2 days ago | parent [-]

What? 7.2k CI runs per second is a piece of cake! ;-)

	▲	aniceperson 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		the ci problem I think is fundamentally easier, since each is its own instance, you just need an orcestrator to coordinate, that can also be one per a group of repositories (there are no cross-repo triggers anyway). The actions issues we keep facing seem to be at the agregation/collector side of things, similar to general api issues, not a fundamental kubernetes scaling issue.

▲

AbhiDunna 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

pksunkara 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Since they wouldn't need to actually have the inactive repositories on disk anymore, I reckon it should solve the horizontal scale issue too by reducing the compute/disk capacity that needs to be maintained.