Skip to content

fix: improve autoscaling based on database config. - #206

Merged
thenav56 merged 1 commit into
IFRCGo:developfrom
pantierra:fix/improve-autoscaling
Sep 2, 2026
Merged

fix: improve autoscaling based on database config.#206
thenav56 merged 1 commit into
IFRCGo:developfrom
pantierra:fix/improve-autoscaling

Conversation

@pantierra

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

No description provided.

@wrynearson

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@pantierra could you add a short description for this PR?

@thenav56 could review and merge if approved?

@subinasr
subinasr requested a review from thenav56 August 31, 2026 09:51
@thenav56

thenav56 commented Sep 1, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Sure @wrynearson


Hi @pantierra Can you rebase your branch on the latest develop? There are merge conflicts.


Merging this PR will update both staging and production. Do you think we should try it on staging first?

@pantierra
pantierra force-pushed the fix/improve-autoscaling branch from f7a8c23 to b737abb Compare September 1, 2026 15:50
@pantierra

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Fixed the merge conflict. Ready for your review again.

@thenav56 thenav56 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, let me know if we are good to deploy this to both staging and prod

@batpad

batpad commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@thenav56 I think this is straightforward enough and roll-backable enough that I feel comfy going ahead with deploying to staging and prod - let's do it!

@pantierra is out today, but I think @wrynearson can help test after this has been deployed - I don't imagine this will have a huge impact either way, but ofc good to do as part of overall improvements.

@thenav56
thenav56 merged commit 6a6108c into IFRCGo:develop Sep 2, 2026
2 of 3 checks passed
@thenav56

thenav56 commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

ArgoCD sync is green for both staging and production.

@batpad

batpad commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@wrynearson mind doing just a quick sanity check with one of your notebooks or so hitting both staging and production and seeing that at least there is no major regression in responses / performance?

@wrynearson

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Seems like responses still perform in a similar way to before the merge – still with many 500 errors for large spatio-temporal requests.

A single-country (TUR), single-hazard (earthquake), multi-collection, one-month (2023-02-01T00:00:00Z/2023-02-28T23:59:59Z) search took 14s to complete. I don't think this is a regression, but also doesn't seem like an improvement. Maybe we need to wait for #205 to be merged?

@batpad

batpad commented Sep 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@wrynearson 👍 ya, did not expect this to cause much change for requests from a single user - as long as there does not seem to be any significant regression, I think this is good, and ya, we will only be able to really tell once we have all the db fixes in, as right now my strong hunch is that the db is the bottleneck, and not API container scaling. Thanks for testing!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants