<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"> Hi, I’m hoping someone can help me solve a strange problem I’m having with my Pulp installation, or at least give me a good idea where I should look further to get it solved. The most irritating aspect of the problem is that it doesn’t reliably reproduce.</p><p class="MsoNormal"> The failure condition is realized when a client is adding a new artifact. In all cases, the client is able to successfully “upload” the artifact to Pulp (successful according to the response from the Pulp server). The problem comes in at the next step where the client directs Pulp to “import” the uploaded artifact, and then awaits a successful task result before proceeding. This is set up within a loop; up to 30 queries for a successful response to the import task are made, with a 2-second interval between queries. If the import doesn’t succeed within those constraints, the operation is treated as having timed-out, and further actions with that artifact (specifically, a publish operation) are abandoned. Many times that algorithm works with no problem at all, but far too often, that successful response is not received within the 30 iterations. It surprises me that there would be a failure at this point, actually – I wouldn’t expect an “import” operation to be very complicated or take a lot of time (but I’m certainly not intimate with the details of Pulp implementation either). Is it just a case that my expectations of the “import” operation are unreasonable, and I should relax the loop parameters to allow more attempts/more time between attempts for this to succeed? As I’ve mentioned, this doesn’t always fail, I’d even go so far as to claim that it succeeds “most of the time”, but I need more consistency than that for this to be deemed production-worthy.</p><p class="MsoNormal"> I’ve tried monitoring operations using pulp-admin to make sure that tasks are being managed properly (they seem to be, but I’m not yet any sort of Pulp expert), and I’ve also monitored the Apache mod_status output to see if there is anything obvious (there’s not, but I’m no Apache expert either). I’ve also found nothing obvious in any Pulp log output. I’d be deeply grateful if anyone can offer any sort of wisdom, help or advice on this issue, I’m at the point where I’m not sure where to look next to get this resolved. I’d seriously hate to have to abandon Pulp because I can’t get it to perform consistently and reliably (not only because of the amount of work this would represent, but because I like working with Pulp and appreciate what it has to offer).</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal"> I have managed to put together a test case that seems to reliably demonstrate the problem – sort of. This test case uses 16 clients running in parallel, each of which has from 1-10 artifacts to upload (most clients have only 5). When I say that it “sort of” demonstrates the problem, the most recent run failed on 5 of those clients (all with the condition mentioned above), while the previous run failed on 8, and the one before that on 9, with no consistency of which client will fail to upload which artifact.</p><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Other observations:</p><ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc"><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">Failure conditions don’t seem to have anything to do with the client’s platform, geographical location, or be attached to a specific client.</li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">One failure on a client doesn’t imply the next attempt from that same client will also fail, in fact, more often than not it doesn’t.</li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">Failure conditions don’t seem to have anything to do with the artifact being uploaded.</li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">There is no consistency around which artifact fails to upload (it’s not always the first artifact from a client, or the third, etc.)</li></ul><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal">Environment Details</p><ul style="margin-top:0in" type="disc"><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">Pulp 2.14.3 using Docker containers based on Centos 7: one Apache/Pulp API container, one Qpid message broker container, one Mongo DB container, one Celery worker management container, one resource manager/task assignment container, and two Pulp worker containers. All containers are running within a single Docker host, dedicated to only Pulp-related operations. The diagram at <a href="http://docs.pulpproject.org/en/2.14/user-guide/scaling.html">http://docs.pulpproject.org/en/2.14/user-guide/scaling.html</a> was used as a guide for this setup.</li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">Ubuntu/Mac/Windows-based clients are using a Java application plugin to do artifact uploads. Clients are dispersed across multiple geographical sites, including the same site where the Pulp server resides.</li><li class="MsoListParagraph" style="margin-left:0in">Artifacts are company-proprietary (configured as a Pulp plugin), but essentially are a single ZIP file with attached metadata for tracking and management purposes.</li></ul></div></body></html>