On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 1:02 AM Tim Flink <tflink@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Oraculum, on the other hand, is less small because it's looking for and
storing a bunch of data. That being said, I'm not sure what you would
consider large.
Yeah, since launch, more than 500 users have used the packager dashboard. We're syncing only those who use it at least once per 14 days but that still means that we process a lot of data. What I'd consider a bare minimum is something equivalent to a vm with (at least) 4 GB of RAM, ideally at least 8 core CPU and a place to put the db (currently about 600MB) and redis on. Also, I expect more people to actively use it once we announce it as a production app publicly and actively point packagers and users to it .
Oraculum is also ready for OpenShift deployment (I have it up and running in some RH internal cluster for OpenShift deployment development and testing, but that cluster is available only for a very limited time), but those ansible playbooks are not written yet and this is something I'd need help/mentoring with. In case of OpenShift deployment, it needs at least 6 pods (including redis and psql), worker pod ideally with at least 2 replicas.
The plan was to deploy it to Communishift, announce it officially and slowly test ansiblized CommuniShift next to it.
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
