[Pulp-list] Deprecating Pulp Nodes

[Mihai Ibanescu]

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/20161209/f153c7dc/attachment.htm>