[Pulp-dev] Pulp3 Applicability Design thoughts (and Katello)

[Justin Sherrill]

To wrap this discussion up, it seems that there is pretty wide agreement 
that this functionality best fits into Katello.

We'll likely start an RFC discussion over at the foreman Discourse 
<https://community.theforeman.org/> server soon: 
https://community.theforeman.org/.

Thanks All!

Justin

On 1/17/20 8:30 AM, Justin Sherrill wrote:
> There have been some design discussions going on around applicability 
> (https://hackmd.io/ydvHuzXNRA6T9eXx6cqy5A) in pulp3.
>
> There are some big changes compared to pulp2, including:
>
> * Package profile, module profile,and repository list have to be 
> uploaded on every applicability computation
>
> * Calls for applicability are not asynchronous (which makes sense as 
> they are one profile at a time).
>
> Also keep in mind that due to the complexity of all the information 
> needed, Katello has been the primary (and sometimes the only?) user of 
> the service.
>
> For an example of what this might looks like, consider a repository 
> that syncs some new packages.  For 10,000 clients, it has to send the 
> full package profiles for all 10,000 clients, as well as the other 
> information in 10,000 api calls.  In Addition our task workers will 
> have to wait around for all 10,000 clients to be calculated.  One last 
> point is that katello already knows all the NVREA's for the rpms, 
> which rpms are in which repositories, which artifacts are in which 
> modules, and which packages are in what errata.
>
> Given all this, does it make sense for pulp to calculate the 
> applicability?  Or does it make sense for katello to?
>
> This assumes that no one else wants to use applicability in pulp3 (and 
> given the barrier to entry is even higher than it was in pulp2, that 
> may be possible).
>
> Justin
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20200122/ee631d05/attachment.htm>