[Pulp-list] Deprecating Pulp Nodes

[David Davis]

Correct on both points. The normal sync+publish doesn’t have full feature
parity with Nodes. In fact, another feature that comes to mind besides
syncing of user metadata on repositories is that the strategies that were
supported for syncing content across Nodes is going away.


David

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Mihai Ibanescu <mihai.ibanescu at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Two things that come to mind:
>
> * if nodes was indeed replicating the pulp user metadata (of which I am
> unsure), then you will have to make it clear that going with repo syncs is
> not quite equivalent
> * sync runs are asynchronous calls. If a call runs for too long, there may
> be more than one sync task scheduled. An in-app scheduler could potentially
> notice that there is already a pending sync and not schedule another one.
> cron/systemd would have a harder time peeking into the task list.
>
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 9:38 AM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Kodiak,
>>
>> I think Katello is using sync schedules but they have some other solution
>> lined up for when we drop them in 3.0. I am not sure of the exact details.
>>
>> The main reason for dropping sync schedules was to keep the 3.0 MVP as
>> small as possible and we felt like we could offload the functionality onto
>> other tools like cron which are much more specialized and better able to
>> deal with scheduling. If enough users want scheduled syncs back though, we
>> may take a look at adding it in a 3.x release.
>>
>> Hope that answers your question.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Kodiak Firesmith <kfiresmith at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm good with this mostly just because Pulp 2.x schedules left a lot to
>>> be desired.  It would have been nice if they were more like roles where you
>>> could create a schedule once, eg: DAILY-0030, and associate multiple repos
>>> w/ it.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing you are dropping scheduling because Katello handles
>>> scheduling on it's own?
>>>
>>>  - Kodiak
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 2:20 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jeffrey,
>>>>
>>>> That’s a great question. We are not in fact planning to support sync
>>>> schedules in 3.0. We’re encouraging users to use other tools like cron and
>>>> systemd timers instead. Here’s an overview of what we’re planning for Pulp
>>>> 3.0:
>>>>
>>>> https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp_3_Minimum_Viable_Product
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Miller, Jeffrey L <
>>>> jeff-l-miller at uiowa.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Is scheduling syncs also being removed? I see the blog post is using
>>>>> cron to sync or publish the repository instead of setting a schedule.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Jeffrey
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* pulp-list-bounces at redhat.com [mailto:pulp-list-bounces at redh
>>>>> at.com] *On Behalf Of *David Davis
>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 8, 2016 8:08 AM
>>>>> *To:* pulp-list at redhat.com
>>>>> *Subject:* [Pulp-list] Deprecating Pulp Nodes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We wrote a blog post about removing Nodes in Pulp 3.0 but I figured
>>>>> I'd sent out an email as well in order to increase visibility. Nodes will
>>>>> be officially deprecated in Pulp 2.12 and then removed in Pulp 3.0. For
>>>>> more information about why we deprecated Nodes and how you can reproduce
>>>>> their functionality using a standard install of Pulp, check out the blog
>>>>> post:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://pulpproject.org/2016/12/07/deprecating-nodes/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Feel free to respond with any questions or concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pulp-list mailing list
>>>> Pulp-list at redhat.com
>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-list mailing list
>> Pulp-list at redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/attachments/20161210/2872cc8e/attachment.htm>