[Pulp-dev] Port Pulp3 to use RQ
mkovacik at redhat.com
Thu Mar 22 21:28:07 UTC 2018
+1 I like RQ and I like http://python-rq.org/docs/testing/ esp.
there's Fakeredis ;)
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 6:58 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:
> Thanks for all the discussion both on list and on irc. After more
> investigation, it sounds like there are no feature gaps, but we will need to
> incorporate this workaround to cancel a task that is already running.
> The feedback I've heard on the idea is that it's valuable and looks
> feasible, but we won't really know until we prototype it a bit. Based on the
> technical outline in the previous email, I believe it can be prototyped in a
> day or two. I plan to do this soon, once I contribute to a few other
> required-for-beta planning items first. I'll post my PR to see what other
> think of the change, probably next week.
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:
>> I meant in the sense that, what is the aftermath when it comes back
>> online, and is it screwed up in ways that cause side effects.
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:02 PM, Jeremy Audet <jaudet at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> > RQ does not support revoking tasks. If you send the worker a SIGINT,
>>> > it will finish the task and then stop processing new ones. If you send the
>>> > worker SIGKILL, it will stop immediately, but I don't think it gracefully
>>> > handles this circumstance.
>>> Nothing handles SIGKILL gracefully. Processes can't catch that signal.
>>> `kill -9 $pid` sends SIGKILL.
>>> If one is looking for a way to gracefully, immediately kill an RQ
>>> worker, then SIGTERM may do the trick. Anecdotally, many processes
>>> handle this signal in a hurried fashion. Semantically, this is
>>> appropriate: SIGINT is the "terminal interrupt" signal (Ctrl+c sends
>>> SIGINT), whereas SIGTERM is the "termination signal."
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
More information about the Pulp-dev