[Pulp-list] Deprecating Pulp Nodes

[Michael Hrivnak]

One option we haven't talked about much that may be possible in Pulp 3:
what if one Pulp deployment could retrieve repositories and content from
another Pulp deployment, using only the REST API. Since the new REST API is
heavily auto-generated, adding endpoints for data models is relatively
low-cost. As long as we could expose the contents of a repo, and the full
representation of each content unit in that repo (including its files) via
the REST API, one Pulp could retrieve the full representations of a repo
and its contents and store them locally.

Once we get versioned repositories implemented (not planned for 3.0, but
hopefully not long after), we could even think about a mirroring situation
where one Pulp can see exactly what changed in a repo on a remote Pulp, and
efficiently propagate those changes locally.

But like I said, these ideas have not been vetted or even thought through
yet. Commentary is welcome!

Michael



On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 4:19 PM, David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/de5159b4/attachment.htm>