dkliban at redhat.com
Wed Feb 19 17:52:21 UTC 2020
In Katello that uses Pulp 2, what steps does the user need to take when
importing an export into an air gapped environment? I am concerned about
making the process more complicated than what the user is already used to.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:20 AM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the responses so far. I think we could export publications
> along with the repo version by exporting any publication that points to a
> repo version.
> My concern with exporting repositories is that users will probably get a
> bunch of content they don't care about if they want to export a single repo
> version. That said, if users do want to export entire repos, we could add
> this feature later I think?
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:30 AM Justin Sherrill <jsherril at redhat.com>
>> On 2/14/20 1:09 PM, David Davis wrote:
>> Grant and I met today to discuss importers and exporters and we'd like
>> some feedback before we proceed with the design. To sum up this feature
>> briefly: users can export a repository version from one Pulp instance and
>> import it to another.
>> # Master/Detail vs Core
>> So one fundamental question is whether we should use a Master/Detail
>> approach or just have core control the flow but call out to plugins to get
>> export formats.
>> To give some background: we currently define Exporters (ie
>> FileSystemExporter) in core as Master models. Plugins extend this model
>> which allows them to configure or customize the Exporter. This was
>> necessary because some plugins need to export Publications (along with
>> repository metadata) while other plugins who don't have Publications or
>> metadata export RepositoryVersions.
>> The other option is to have core handle the workflow. The user would call
>> a core endpoint and provide a RepositoryVersion. This would work because
>> for importing/exporting, you wouldn't ever use Publications because
>> metadata won't be used for importing back into Pulp. If needed, core could
>> provide a way for plugin writers to write custom handlers/exporters for
>> content types.
>> If we go with the second option, the question then becomes whether we
>> should divorce the concept of Exporters and import/export. Or do we also
>> switch Exporters from Master/Detail to core only?
>> # Foreign Keys
>> Content can be distributed across multiple tables (eg UpdateRecord has
>> UpdateCollection, etc). In our export, we could either use primary keys
>> (UUIDs) or natural keys to relate records. The former assumes that UUIDs
>> are unique across Pulp instances. The safer but more complex alternative is
>> to use natural keys. This would involve storing a set of fields on a record
>> that would be used to identify a related record.
>> # Incremental Exports
>> There are two big pieces of data contained in an export: the dataset of
>> Content from the database and the artifact files. An incremental export
>> cuts down on the size of an export by only exporting the differences.
>> However, when performing an incremental export, we could still export the
>> complete dataset instead of just a set of differences
>> (additions/removals/updates). This approach would be simpler and it would
>> allow us to ensure that the new repo version matches the exported repo
>> version exactly. It would however increase the export size but not by much
>> I think--probably some number of megabytes at most.
>> If its simper, i would go with that. Saving even ~100-200 MB isn't that
>> big of a deal IMO. the biggest savings is in the RPM content.
>>  https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6134
>> Pulp-dev mailing listPulp-dev at redhat.comhttps://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pulp-dev