[Pulp-dev] Port Pulp3 to use RQ

Wed May 9 15:24:58 UTC 2018

At the proper time, a demo about the Pulp 3 task system will be very
beneficial. I am thinking about something similar what it was done for Pulp
2.

Looking forward for this.

Regards,

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180509/97777cc8/attachment.htm>