Container image virtual registry: performance review

Everyone can contribute. Help move this issue forward while earning points, leveling up and collecting rewards.

• Close this issue

🥅 Goal

Compare the performance metrics (latency, database calls & others) between these scenarios with a setup that has a few upstreams (3-4):

• Pulling an image from the upstreams directly.
• Pulling an image from the virtual registry with an empty cache.
• Pulling an image from the virtual registry with a filled cache.

🛠️ Implementation plan

• Container image virtual registry: database models (#548783 - closed) • Adie (she/her), Radamanthus Batnag • 18.5 • Needs attention
• Container image virtual registry: cache entry s... (#549103 - closed) • Radamanthus Batnag • 18.5 • On track
• Container image virtual registry: upstream serv... (#549104 - closed) • Adie (she/her) • 18.4
• Container image virtual registry: handle file r... (#549134) • Adie (she/her) • 18.6
• Container image virtual registry: manage APIs (... (#548794 - closed) • Adie (she/her) • 18.5 • On track
• Container image virtual registry: push/pull end... (#549131) • Radamanthus Batnag • Backlog
• Container image virtual registry: performance r... (#549136) • Unassigned • Backlog 👈
• Container image virtual registry: documentation... (#549138) • Unassigned • 18.6
• Container image virtual registry: additional fe... (#549470) • Unassigned • Backlog