[Pulp-list] Pulp 3.0 and future requirements?

[Brian Bouterse]

Hi Dagan, With s/Nagios/nginx/ I much better understand your note. What I'm
hearing is that it would be valuable for Pulp to be able to run on other
webserver+WSGI stacks like Nginx and uWSGI. That is great feedback.

Besides the general availability of configuration files, I think there are
only two things (I know of) which prevent Pulp from running on another
stack currently:

1) Content protection. With httpd, access scripts are used so to reach a
yes/no decision if a client is allowed to have a given piece of content
based on the certificate they present.

2) mod_xsendfile functionality. This is what lets Pulp set a special header
which tells httpd the path of the file to return for that request. This
allows us to keep the content in the DB and at request-time tell httpd
which piece of content should be received for that request. We wouldneed
something similar

We would really like some help determining if things like nginx can support
the above two use cases.

-Brian

On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Dagan McGregor <list at sudo.nz> wrote:

> On 2 May 2017 3:20:28 AM NZST, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dagen,
>>
>> For Pulp 3.0.0, the feature set is mostly known with user use cases
>> tracked in a document on the wiki. The doc [0] is written as a minimum
>> viable product so we can deliver something that provides Pulp's core value
>> in a timely manner and then we can add features to it over time. Some
>> notable gaps include no authorization, nodes has been removed, and so have
>> scheduled calls. One notable addition is a legitimate Plugin API to ease
>> the burden for plugin writers adding content support.
>>
>> Pulp3 will only use PostgreSQL, which will entirely replace Pulp's usage
>> of mongodb. It's good to hear this will match your standard operating
>> environment.
>>
>> In terms of Nagios, I'm more familiar with that as a management system
>> instead of httpd. I'd have to hear more about what you would like in terms
>> Nagios support. In terms of using Nagios for monitoring, the Status API is
>> available in Pulp2 and will also be in Pulp3.
>>
>> There is a developer mailing list called pulp-dev which is where most of
>> the Pulp3 discussion is currently happening. You can join it [1] or read
>> the archives [2]. We also have weekly calls [3] where each week we refine a
>> section of the MVP with more details.
>>
>> If you have specific use cases, suggestions, or ideas, please let us
>> know! We would really like some alpha/beta testing, which we hope to be
>> starting soon but we are just a bit early for. Right now making sure the
>> use cases are sound is one of the best ways to contribute.
>>
>> [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp_3_Minimum_Viabl
>> e_Product
>> [1]: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>> [2]: https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/
>> [3]: https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/2017-April/msg00010.html
>>
>> -Brian
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Dagan McGregor <list at sudo.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have been looking at installing Pulp for managing our local rpm
>>> repositories and I am curious about what changes are planned or confirmed
>>> for Pulp 3.0.
>>>
>>> Our site standard is to run PostgreSQL and Nagios for services wherever
>>> possible, having migrated off httpd.
>>>
>>> Will Pulp 3.0 continue using MongoDB or will other databases like
>>> PostgreSQL be supported as well?
>>>
>>> And are there any plans to have Nagios support alongside the current
>>> httpd?
>>>
>>> I did find a blog article but nothing else mentioned. I am happy to help
>>> with some testing if it would be useful.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Dagan McGregor
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-list mailing list
>>> Pulp-list at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
>>>
>>
>>
> Hi Brian,
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> I had a major brain fade. I meant to say *Nginx support* for web services.
>
> As Homer would say, D'oh!
>
> I see the current design uses httpd and mod_wsgi. I assume not all
> features may match with using something like Nginx and uWSGi.
>
> It would be nice as an option if possible, if changes are still being
> considered.
>
> I will join the dev list to follow the discussions there.
>
> Cheers,
> Dagan McGregor
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/attachments/20170502/9a75663b/attachment.htm>