-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 873
gs://k8s-artifacts-cni is expensive and probably unnecessary #7584
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
/sig k8s-infra |
/sig release |
@upodroid added labels so we can collect data on this more easily. There is some dwindling cost from the GCRs in this project and also cri tools which are both already being phased out AFAIK. |
This was discussed yesterday in SIG K8s Infra with @justinsb + SIG K8s Infra leads in particular. We do NOT want to break anyone immediately, and we can afford not to, but we do want to exit this sort of thing (any lingering third party hosting, CI ...) long term. Commented in kops at: |
The Kubernetes project currently lacks enough contributors to adequately respond to all issues. This bot triages un-triaged issues according to the following rules:
You can:
Please send feedback to sig-contributor-experience at kubernetes/community. /lifecycle stale |
/lifecycle frozen |
I think we've migrated usage within the project? We can think about a timeline to wind down the bucket now ... |
thread in https://kubernetes.slack.com/archives/C2C40FMNF/p1733349220696569
@upodroid noticed this when we were looking into the GCS spend not continuing to shrink following the full k8s.gcr.io redirect
@upodroid suggested in the thread we could start by changing the bucket type to reduce the cost
I think longterm we want to identify what little is using this (we took a peek in cs.k8s.io, kube-up is one of the main users, but also possibly kops) and instead just use the official upstream binary releases
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: