Clarify that Schedules contribute to Active and Retained Storage - #5303
Clarify that Schedules contribute to Active and Retained Storage#5303Duncanma wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
Running Schedules keep their own backing Workflow Execution open, which counts toward Active Storage for as long as the Schedule exists. Deleting an unneeded Schedule reduces that footprint, but its closed history still counts toward Retained Storage for the Namespace's retention period, so cleanup shifts the cost rather than removing it. Add this to the Schedules concept page, the Cloud pricing page, and the cost-optimization best practices guide.
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
📖 Docs PR preview links
|
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 771e27fc44
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".
| Each [Schedule](/schedule) keeps its own backing Workflow Execution open for as long as the Schedule exists, so running Schedules contribute to Active Storage. | ||
| Audit Schedules periodically and delete the ones you no longer need — for example with `temporal schedule delete` (see [Delete](/cli/command-reference/schedule#delete)) or your SDK's delete-Schedule API. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This procedural cost-optimization subsection presents the implementation detail before telling readers what to do. Start with the instruction to audit and delete unneeded Schedules, then explain the backing Workflow and storage consequences, so readers encounter the action before its rationale.
AGENTS.md reference: AGENTS.md:L266-L268
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
1 participant
Summary
A customer investigation traced an unexpectedly high Active Storage bill (with ~$0 Retained Storage) to tens of thousands of running Schedules, each keeping its own backing system Workflow open. Support clarified in a Slack thread that our docs should state this more clearly:
This PR adds that clarification to the three canonical pages that cover Schedules and Cloud storage costs, cross-linked:
docs/encyclopedia/workflow/schedule.mdx— expands theLimitationssection with the storage-cost mechanism.docs/evaluate/temporal-cloud/pricing.mdx— revises the existing Schedules storage tip to distinguish Active vs. Retained impact.docs/best-practices/cost-optimization.mdx— adds a newSchedulessubsection under Active Storage optimization with concrete cleanup guidance.Out of scope: Schedules v2's expected storage-usage reduction, since no percentage or release date has been confirmed yet.
Test plan
yarn buildsucceedsvale --config .vale-ci.ini docs/encyclopedia/workflow/schedule.mdx docs/evaluate/temporal-cloud/pricing.mdx docs/best-practices/cost-optimization.mdx— 0 errors/warningsyarn check-links— no new broken anchors introduced by this change