coulomb/issue-core
5
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
issue-core/workplans/ISSUE-WP-0008-wave2-resource-right-sizing.md
tegwick f4e19c4a7b
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 1s
Details
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 2s
Details
ISSUE-WP-0008: wave-2 resource right-sizing receiving workplan 
Receiving workplan for the 2026-10-21 node allocation review
(RESOURCE-WP-0008-T03 / CUST-WP-0071-T03). Wave-2 apply is human-gated;
no manifest changes.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 8340@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 2e192b3d-b3e8-4403-94d4-d55a2c8b476c
2026-10-21 08:47:34 +02:00

3 KiB
Raw Blame History

id type title domain repo status flavor owner topic_slug created updated related
ISSUE-WP-0008 workplan Wave-2 resource right-sizing from the 2026-10-21 allocation review infotech issue-core ready implementation claude issue-core 2026-10-21 2026-10-21
CUST-WP-0071
RESOURCE-WP-0008

ISSUE-WP-0008 — Wave-2 resource right-sizing from the 2026-10-21 allocation review

Receiving workplan in issue-core for the wave-2 request changes below.

Origin: the 2026-10-21 node allocation review (RESOURCE-WP-0008-T03, feeding CUST-WP-0071-T03). Per the founder's 2026-10-21 delivery interview (the-custodian/docs/decisions/2026-10-21-cust-wp-0071-delivery-interview.md) the small adjustments form wave 2: one receiving task per owner repo, applied later in a batch. Applying wave 2 needs a separate founder approval, so every cluster-write task here is a human-gated wait. This file changes no manifest.

Apply the reviewed request changes

id: ISSUE-WP-0008-T01
status: wait
priority: medium
needs_human: true
blocking_reason: "Wave-2 cluster write; founder approval for wave 2 not yet given (2026-10-21 interview)"

Values are pod-aggregate figures from the budget file (7-day window ending 2026-10-21T06:08Z). Limits stay unchanged unless stated.

Workload (ns/name) Pods CPU request CPU limit CPU p95/peak 7d (m) Memory request Memory limit Mem p95/peak (Mi) Throttle Action
issue-core/issue-core 1 50m → 5m 500m 2.0/3.4 128Mi → 48Mi 256Mi 41.4/50.7 0.0 decrease + memory down

Source and container detail:

  • issue-core/issue-core: Deployment issue-core, container issue-core, rapp-issue-core/manifests/30-runtime.yaml (50m/128Mi) — the deploy source lives in rapp-issue-core.

Evidence: resource-control docs/evidence/2026-10-21-node-allocation-review/2026-10-21-node-budget.md (+ .json, commit 3d9b1bd). Rule: CPU = max(floor, p95x1.5, peakx0.5) rounded up to 5m; memory request = 7d p95 working set x1.15 (only when the change is at least 64Mi).

Steps:

  1. Map the pod-aggregate proposal onto the named container(s) in the source file; where a workload has several containers or pods, split by the per-pod figures in 2026-10-21-workload-usage.json and keep the sum at the proposed value.
  2. Prepare the source change as a reviewed commit (no push, no sync) and record the before values here.
  3. Apply only inside the batched wave-2 rollout, after founder approval, through the owner's normal deploy path (ArgoCD sync or documented helm/kubectl apply).

Verification: kubectl -n <ns> get pod -o jsonpath='{..resources}' shows the new requests; pods Ready with no new restarts or OOMKilled over 24h; for CPU decreases the throttle ratio and request latency stay at or below the 7d baseline; node request total drops by the expected delta.

Rollback: revert the source commit and re-sync/re-apply; the before values in the table above are the rollback target. Keep before/after kubectl get -o yaml captures as the receipt.