[Pulp-dev] Port Pulp3 to use RQ

Mon May 14 16:41:16 UTC 2018

There's been a slight change in schedule. Now we believe the lowest risk
option is to merge today instead of tomorrow.

We're finishing the latest rebase now, letting Travis tell us it's good,
and then merging it. We'll send a final note to the list post merge.

Thanks to everyone for helping out!

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:07 PM, Dana Walker <dawalker at redhat.com> wrote:

> +1 to advance notice, and +1 to @bmbouter and @dalley on the work,
> review/testing, and blog post.
>
> Dana Walker
>
> Associate Software Engineer
>
> Red Hat
>
> <https://www.redhat.com>
> <https://red.ht/sig>
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:20 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Great work on this. Also, thanks for announcing this on pulp-dev well in
>> advance.
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Robin Chan <rchan at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> dalley has learned how to do some debugging already, so maybe he can
>>> look at doing a demo. Good suggestion, Kersom. It would be good to
>>> link to in a blog post - and  also point out the good demo @bmbouter
>>> put together for pulp 2.
>>>
>>> great job @dalley & @bmbouter on the blog post!
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Kersom <kersom at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> > 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
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180514/87dda303/attachment.htm>