[Pulp-list] Pulp 3.0 and future requirements?

[Dagan McGregor]

On 3 May 2017 2:57:32 AM NZST, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:
>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Hi Brian, 

I remember having a look for the XSendFile support after reading the blog post. Nginx does have support in a different way to httpd. 

https://www.nginx.com/resources/wiki/start/topics/examples/xsendfile/

I am not sure about the content protection and running scripts. I would have to look further. 

Cheers, 
Dagan McGregor 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/attachments/20170502/730f308f/attachment.htm>