We have it as a data analyst that’s been trained via exemplar queries and MD about the underlying databases.
It also does ad creatives analysis and overall paid marketing spend analysis, including delivering briefs and conversing with stakeholders about things such as cross-ad-platform deduplicated cost of customer acquisition.
In general it is used to lower the technical bar required for cross-domain collab.
In this case the CPU wasn’t really saturated with work but with contention on global locks. The contention is lessened by removing the amount of concurrent mounts that are being done.
I wonder if simply setting a maximum number of concurrent mounts in the code or by letting containerd think there are only half the amount of cores, would have solved the contention to the same amount.
Even in a product as technically wonderful as Temporal, we can have relatively simple oversights like this that lead to cross tenant leakage.
If anyone is more familiar with Temporal, is there a way clients could have had internal defense in depth that guards against tenant leakage at the provider (Temporal) level?