[Pulp-dev] Port Pulp3 to use RQ

Brian Bouterse bbouters at redhat.com
Wed May 9 14:32:16 UTC 2018


All PRs have Travis showing green and all necessary LGTMs. The plan is to
merge next Tuesday the 15th, which means it will be in core Beta 4.

Yesterday, @dalley and I published a blog post which outlines the change
for users along with a porting guide for plugins to port onto RQ as well.

https://pulpproject.org/2018/05/08/pulp3-moving-to-rq/

Thank you to everyone for the help, collaboration, and energy on this
significant change.

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:

> I've finished my review and resolved all of the 'blocker' issues that were
> uncovered during testing.  Overall, I'm highly confident that this is a
> better path forwards than the continued use of Celery / Kombu.  There are a
> couple of outstanding edge cases to be resolved eventually, which I plan to
> file as issues post-merge, but nothing serious or intractable.
>
> If there are no objections, I think it would be reasonable to merge this
> code after this week's beta builds are published (after, in order to avoid
> major changes during Summit / PyCon prep time).
>
> Thank you, Brian, for doing the planning and work needed to make this
> happen.  It was a lot of effort and is very highly appreciated.
>
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Through several rebases, now all PRs are showing the RQ PRs on Travis as
>> passing with pulp-smash. Several points of feedback have been addressed.
>>
>> If you're interested in commenting on these PRs or trying them out,
>> please do. I hope to merge after the other taking system maintainers
>> @dalley and @daviddavis have finished their testing/review and barring any
>> other calls for delay or blocking concerns.
>>
>> If there are any questions, issues, or concerns, please reach out, and we
>> can talk through them.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I put together a prototype and posted the PRs. I'm still working to get
>>> Travis happy, but locally 100% of smash tests using these branches. It's
>>> worked very reliably for me so far. There are no gaps in the pulp feature
>>> set on top of RQ.
>>>
>>> I hope people test it out and give some feedback. See the commit
>>> messages for details on what was done. Here are the PRs:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3454
>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/pull/72
>>> https://github.com/pulp/devel/pull/146
>>> https://github.com/PulpQE/pulp-smash/pull/960
>>>
>>> Feel free to send questions here or to the PR. Any feedback is welcome.
>>>
>>> -Brian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Milan Kovacik <mkovacik at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 I like RQ and I like http://python-rq.org/docs/testing/ esp.
>>>> there's Fakeredis ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> milan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180509/af04034c/attachment.htm>


More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list