[Qgis-psc] Github actions analysis

[Jeff McKenna]

Short message to let you know that the MapServer repository is facing 
the same issue with hitting GitHub limits, and I am seeing several >1GB 
cache entries for our Conda builds (the cache logs mention 
"micromamba-environment"), lingering several weeks later (that can add 
up!).  I am monitoring this now, and following your QGIS-PSC 
discussions.  Thank-you again for the QGIS-PSC being so open and (as 
always) being the first in the ecosystem to tackle this.

(by the way, the GitHub cache limits start tomorrow/15 October)

-jeff



On 2025-10-14 10:06 a.m., Alessandro Pasotti via QGIS-PSC wrote:
> 
> Sorry, in my previous email I wrote "we would need 4.5 of these 
> machines" while I meant 3.5 machines.
> 
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 2:59 PM Alessandro Pasotti <apasotti at gmail.com 
> <mailto:apasotti at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     During the last PSC meeting we talked briefly about how to solve the
>     problem that we have with the Github CI limitations, one of the
>     possible solutions that we discussed was to start migrating part of
>     the CI to self-hosted runners.
> 
>     I've just made an attempt to understand the hardware requirements
>     that we would need and I have collected some statistics from our
>     Github account, summarized here for the period of the last 30 days:
> 
>     https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16-tiSLndm-ISxRFgZcE-
>     Ewytr8cwLj00gdYs1iBsz58/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/
>     spreadsheets/d/16-tiSLndm-ISxRFgZcE-Ewytr8cwLj00gdYs1iBsz58/edit?
>     usp=sharing>
> 
>     Considering that the standard public runner on Github runs on a 4
>     CPU + 16 GB RAM machine intel arch, the rough conclusion is that we
>     would need 4.5 of these machines to handle the actual workload,
>     please note that this a very rough estimation and does not take into
>     account that we probably have peaking hours and we'd need more power
>     if we don't want the jobs to sit in a queue for too long.
> 
>     Anyway, it's a start.
> 
>     Another thing to consider is that we could possibly cut some CI
>     workflows (e.g. mingw64, is that useful?) or move some to a daily
>     cronjob (ogc?).
> 
>     Any thoughts?
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     Alessandro Pasotti
>     QCooperative: www.qcooperative.net <https://www.qcooperative.net>
>     ItOpen: www.itopen.it <http://www.itopen.it>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alessandro Pasotti
> QCooperative: www.qcooperative.net <https://www.qcooperative.net>
> ItOpen: www.itopen.it <http://www.itopen.it>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-PSC mailing list
> QGIS-PSC at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc


-- 
Jeff McKenna
GatewayGeo: Developers of MS4W, & offering MapServer Consulting/Dev
co-founder of FOSS4G
http://gatewaygeo.com/