Hi,
We would like to start utilizing the new Config as Code feature in Octopus. There are two factors that complicate matters:
We have a huge repository (about 1.5 GB on a fresh clone). As such, any operations that we do, like committing changes to a branch is extremely slow. We’re waiting more than a minute for Octopus to actually do the commit. Browsing the deployment process and opening a step for editing is also slow (perhaps 15 sec to open a step).
We have a policy that we require signed commits. This causes commits to fail as well.
So our questions are then:
Any way to optimize the performance? Or is the only way to use a separate repo for the deployment process?
Is there a way to add a gpg key for git commit signing in Octopus Deploy? If not, is this something that is planned?
If it’s relevant, we’re using GitHub for source control + CI, and self-hosted Octopus Deploy.
Thanks for reaching out to Octopus support and for your questions about our Config-as-Code feature.
We are aware of the existing performance when connecting to large Git repositories. At this time we do recommend using separate repos for your deployment processes in order to reduce the time it takes to commit or retrieve changes. That said, I will reach back out to our engineering team to see if there has been any further research done when using a larger repo.
I will also reach out to our engineering team regarding the signed commits. I haven’t heard a mention of that yet, however, I know they have a lot on the roadmap.
I will send an update with any information I can find and in the meantime please let me know if you have any other questions for us.
Thanks for getting back to me about this! And sorry for the late followup.
I would love to hear some feedback from the engineering team on this - both regarding signed commits and performance for large repos. It would help us decide what direction to take. If it can’t be solved then we need to go with a separate repo for this.
Regarding the performance when committing to a large repo, our engineers are actively looking for a solution this quarter, so, I would hope to see an improvement in that area within the next few months.
As for the Git Commit signing, this is on their radar, however, it is a bit further down the list at the moment and hasn’t yet made it onto their roadmap. We’ve made sure to add your desire for this to the item, and will continue to do this with any other customers that show interest in this area to try and raise the priority of this feature.
Thanks a lot for the feedback on this. This is very useful for us for planning ahead.
Then we will go ahead with a separate repo for this at this time. When/if there are any performance improvements related to large repos, we will merge the two repos then.