[Spacewalk-list] [Spacewalk-devel] Modification of spacewalk-service script

[Pierre Casenove]

Let's forget the subject, no problem. I share Miroslav point of view, but
understand yours. And you're right, it'll surely be a maintenance burden.
I'll investigate on database reconnection problem only.
I just wanted to help, you know!
By the way, I couldn't get rid of osa-distpatcher error message connecting
to jabber, which was the beginning of the discussion!
The problem is that jabberd do listen on the network but is not completely
ready (message "sm not ready" returned by jabberd when connecting). So the
pid file already exists and no test can be done to check if jabberd is
really ready. Calling "sleep 2" was the only way around (even sleep 1
didn't do the trick). From my point of view, as osa-dispatcher reconnects
10 seconds after, the only problem is the message displayed to the user.
But it is better thant calling sleep 2 in the script during startup I think.

Pierre

2011/11/13 Jan Pazdziora <jpazdziora at redhat.com>

> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 09:52:07PM +0100, Pierre Casenove wrote:
> > Ok no problem, no patch so. If you're against it, I won't insist!
> > Just to answer your email : HTTPD is also quite independant from the
> > spacewalk product and still, it is controlled. And if postgresql gets
>
> It is not as independent as we'd like -- we use mod_wsgi/mod_perl, so
> for example an upgrade of Spacewalk requires restart of httpd.
>
> On the other hand, even upgrade of Spacewalk's database schema does not
> require restart of the underlying database server.
>
> > restarted with SP up and running, spacewalk needs also to be restarted
> > (connection is lost and never gets restored)
>
> This would be a bug, it should be reported as such, investigated and
> fixed.
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 04:54:48PM -0500, Miroslav Suchy wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > I'm against this change. The database (PostgreSQL, Oracle XE) is
> > > completely independent from the Spacewalk software product and the
> > > spacewalk-service script should have no business fiddling with them.
> >
> > Define "completely independent". It is not true. Spacewalk use it. As it
> use apache.
> > And tomcat. And jabber.
>
> That's true, Spacewalk uses the database. But the database server is
> like filesystem or network for Spacewalk. No action of the Spacewalk
> application (not even its upgrade) requires restart of the database.
> Unlike apache, tomcat, and (presumably) jabberd -- we modify the
> configuration of apache, tomcat, and jabberd for Spacewalk to work
> correctly, and for that we need to restart those services.
>
> > I - personally - would not spent my devel cycles on it, but Pierre is
> willing
> > to do that and contribute it.
> >
> > We recommend to run Spacewalk on dedicated machine. And I suppose that
> most users
> > obey this recommendation. So if there is DB instance, it is very likely
> dedicated
> > to Spacewalk.
> > But yes, it can be used for other purposes as well. For that reason, I
> wanted to
> > have this option disabled by default. So current behavior will be
> preserved.
>
> [...]
>
> > As I said, more user already wanted it. And it is much easier and better
> for users
> > to code this wrapper once, and leave dozen admins to flip one variable
> as compared
> > to leave dozens admins to write theirs wrapper.
>
> The problem is -- it is likely to become maintenance burden in the
> long run. Noone but few people will use it because the default will
> be to have the option off, therefore we won't be testing it.
>
> --
> Jan Pazdziora
> Principal Software Engineer, Satellite Engineering, Red Hat
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spacewalk-devel mailing list
> Spacewalk-devel at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/spacewalk-list/attachments/20111113/ef98ef0e/attachment.htm>