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

Stop using RepositoryCache #1840

Closed
jpopelka opened this issue Jan 12, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed

Stop using RepositoryCache #1840

jpopelka opened this issue Jan 12, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
kind/refactor Technical debt - the code needs love.

Comments

@jpopelka
Copy link
Member

It's been used for SRPM builds which we now (after #1822) do only in propose-downstream job and @lachmanfrantisek says that we don't need the repository cache.

@lachmanfrantisek correct me if I'm wrong

@jpopelka jpopelka added the kind/refactor Technical debt - the code needs love. label Jan 12, 2023
softwarefactory-project-zuul bot added a commit to packit/deployment that referenced this issue Jan 21, 2023
Smaller repository_cache_storage

4Gi for both prod and stg should be enough given that all worker pods say:
$ du -h /repository-cache/
20K     /repository-cache/

Until packit/packit-service#1840 is fixed.

Reviewed-by: Tomas Tomecek <[email protected]>
@lachmanfrantisek
Copy link
Member

👍

Maybe to add, the original goal of this was to make it possible to clone kernel (or any other huge repo with a really long history), but they don't use Packit. And we actually don't cache any project if I am checking that correctly.

If we really really want to use that, we might want to check the possibility of read-many volumes to not need to have so many (same) volumes.

@jpopelka
Copy link
Member Author

After I resolved #1858 I was checking the logs for some time and saw that the workers spent quite a lot of time cloning systemd repo so the cache could still be useful I think.

I guess we can still leave the code in place, close this issue and revisit it in case we'd move to another cluster and decide whether to investigate read-many volumes or disable the cache.

Meanwhile, I reduced (packit/deployment#436) the volumes so that we now request much less storage (all together 72GiB -> 24 GiB if I count correctly).

@jpopelka
Copy link
Member Author

jpopelka commented Apr 14, 2023

packit/deployment#476 will improve the situation even further, closing

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
kind/refactor Technical debt - the code needs love.
Projects
Archived in project
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants