[Pulp-dev] Port Pulp3 to use RQ

Brian Bouterse bbouters at redhat.com
Mon May 14 20:46:22 UTC 2018 

If you are using the dev environment produced by the pulp/devel repo then
doing a vagrant destroy and vagrant up is the easiest way. Just make sure
you fetched all the latest changes from all the repos.

If you want to port an existing environment into RQ, you should:

1. install RQ (the special commit version, see the current installation
docs)
2. update the systemd files (see the examples in the docs)
3. restart your workers

If there are issues during ^ steps reach out and we can help resolve them.

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 4:39 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> Is there any way to convert an existing dev environment to use rq?
>
> Or do I just need to vagrant destroy and vagrant up?
>
>
> David
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Daniel Alley <dalley at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> And pulp_python
>>
>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> RQ is merged to pulp, pulp_file, pulp-smash, and devel. We also ported
>>> and merged pulp_ansible. This will be released with beta 3 of core coming
>>> out this Wednesday.
>>>
>>> If anyone runs into any issues please reach out via IRC or the mailing
>>> list.
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:41 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20180514/874dd3b3/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pulp-dev mailing list