Can we just stop instead of terminating a finished runner?

[neverchanje]

In my case, I cache a lot of intermediate compilation objects on EBS and I don't want to lose them when a workflow is finished.
So I'm wondering if we can provide an option that only stops a machine without terminating it, and also an option to support restarting from the previously stopped instance.

mode: start_existing
instances:
  - i-123
  - i-124
  - i-125

mode: stop_no_terminate
instances:
  - i-123
  - i-124
  - i-125

Related AWS APIs:

• https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/APIReference/API_StartInstances.html
• https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/APIReference/API_StopInstances.html

Another approach could be just to reuse the available EBS volumes that were not deleted after the previous ec2 was terminated. https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/deleteontermination-ebs/ I do not know which option is technically easier to implement.

Thanks.

[machulav]

Currently, we don't support this, but it may be possible with the EC2 launch templates approach in #65, right @jpalomaki 😉

[jpalomaki]

Currently, we don't support this, but it may be possible with the EC2 launch templates approach in #65, right @jpalomaki wink

Block device mapping options might help here, yes. But I don't have first hand experience with that, so cannot say for sure. EBS volume attachment might get racy, if there ever were multiple runners (workflows) running at the same time.

@neverchanje Have you tried using https://docs.github.com/en/actions/guides/caching-dependencies-to-speed-up-workflows#using-the-cache-action?

[DarrinHidef]

Another motivation for having a suspend/resume option would be that it would prevent any risk of having large numbers of instances build up and stay running (extra fees), if there are bugs in the terminate-instance logic. That possibility has me worrying, because I don't want to have to monitor the instance count and don't want a surprise bill at the end of the month.