coulomb/the-custodian
5
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 1 Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Record capped synthetic sizing comparison and remaining coverage
All checks were successful
CI Smoke / host-smoke (push) Successful in 1s
Details
CI Smoke / container-smoke (push) Successful in 2s
Details
Reject generated-only commits / generated-commit-guard (push) Successful in 10s
Details

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
codex 2026-10-19 15:20:08 +02:00
parent b63425d85a
commit dbf62aef47
1 changed files with 25 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

25
workplans/CUST-WP-0071-measured-workload-sizing-and-weekly-review.md
View file

@ -468,3 +468,28 @@ that scenario is rejected as an allocation, not used to justify procurement.
The cross-owner case is retained at
`docs/changes/CUST-WP-0071/resource-control-review-handoff.json`, progress receipt
`381ba7f7-35c6-49f4-8805-4503df060ccd`. No worker-injection service was enabled.
## Existing-limit synthetic comparison — 2026-10-19
Vergabe `bfd1a2d` retains `container-comparison.json`, compressed raw samples,
the exact executed driver and the failed preflight beside the earlier evidence.
The isolated application container was inspected at 1000m CPU and 1Gi memory.
Across 180 seconds with the same two-user mix, 1552 ordinary operations and 516
transfers completed without error. Ordinary p95 was 412ms; transfer p95 was
158ms. Measurement coverage was complete and no OOM kill occurred. Ten focused
tests cover failure cleanup and sampler failure; gaps now prevent conclusions.
Mean application CPU was 940m; 1449 of 1807 CPU periods were throttled. Sampled
p95 of 1037m reflects sampling-period boundaries, not permission above the quota.
Peak cgroup memory was 426MiB including page cache, which is not comparable to
the earlier summed RSS. Separately sampled database CPU p95 was 60.63% of one
core. The first capped preflight failed before load because an internal Docker
bridge blocked its host-published database; cleanup and the corrected dedicated
bridge are retained, without claiming egress isolation.
This meets the latency target for the tested local mix at the existing limit;
it supports no CPU-limit increase or lower memory limit. The 60m request remains
unvalidated under shared contention. T02 stays progress while the owner extends
the same configurable harness with edits, startup/restart and burst phases.
Actual deployed-release/hardware and shared-service observations remain required
for the final allocation review; attended human acceptance remains separate.