dkliban at redhat.com
Wed Feb 19 19:28:11 UTC 2020
Thank you for the details. More questions inline.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 2:04 PM Justin Sherrill <jsherril at redhat.com> wrote:
> the goal from our side is to have a very similar experience to the user.
> Today the user would:
> * run a command (for example, something similar to hammer content-view
> version export --content-view-name=foobar --version=1.0)
> * this creates a tarball on disk
What all is in the tarball? Is this just a repository export created by
Pulp or is there extra information from the Katello db?
> * they copy the tarball to external media
> * they move the external media to the disconnected katello
> * they run 'hammer content-view version import
Does katello untar this archive, create a repository in pulp, sync from the
directory containing the unarchive, and then publish?
> I don't see this changing much for the user, anything additional that
> needs to be done in pulp can be done behind the cli/api in katello. Thanks!
> On 2/19/20 12:52 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote:
> 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>
>> 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