[Pulp-list] Long upgrade times from 2.6 -> 2.8

[Eric Helms]

I think there are a couple of considerations.

 1) The first issue is that a 6-18 hour upgrade window is not something
users expect and we've not been warning them of such so they can plan an
outage accordingly. Lengthy upgrades also have that tendency to make users
feel something is wrong or increase the risk that something can go wrong in
between.
 2) The fundamental question of - is this a bug or does this make perfect
sense and how it has to work?
 3) Applying the upgrade on an existing 2.6 if it changed nothing of the
environment could work, the tough part is having to distribute that
backwards. Pulp would have to distribute it back to 2.6, and Katello would
have to push out patches to our 2.4 release channel.

Eric

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com> wrote:

> I'm trying to understand if the pain point is related to downtime or total
> runtime.
>
> For instance, what if these migration could be run as a pre-migration
> step, ahead of time while Pulp was still online? The upgrade would still
> take just as long but you could use your (in this case) 2.6 install
> normally while the migrations are applying. Once they are done then the
> actual upgrade of the codebase could be very short.
>
> -Brian
>
> On 07/01/2016 09:20 AM, Eric Helms wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Ashby, Jason (IMS) <AshbyJ at imsweb.com
>> <mailto:AshbyJ at imsweb.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     FWIW I just upgraded from 2.7 -> 2.8 and it was approx. 1-2 hr
>>     upgrade to get through the migrations in pulp-manage-db.____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     290 GB /var/lib/pulp____
>>
>>     16 GB MongoDB____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     *From:*pulp-list-bounces at redhat.com
>>     <mailto:pulp-list-bounces at redhat.com>
>>     [mailto:pulp-list-bounces at redhat.com
>>     <mailto:pulp-list-bounces at redhat.com>] *On Behalf Of *Michael Hrivnak
>>     *Sent:* Friday, July 01, 2016 8:31 AM
>>     *To:* Eric Helms <ehelms at redhat.com <mailto:ehelms at redhat.com>>
>>     *Cc:* pulp-list <pulp-list at redhat.com <mailto:pulp-list at redhat.com>>
>>     *Subject:* Re: [Pulp-list] Long upgrade times from 2.6 -> 2.8____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     Did you get any feedback on whether one particular migration seemed
>>     to be running for a lot of that time?
>>
>>
>> For the 1.5TB/100GB MongoDB scenario here is what I am able to glean
>> from user logs (which I can share privately with anyone debugging):
>>
>> ~5 hours: Applying pulp_puppet.plugins.migrations version 4
>> ~10 hours: Applying pulp_rpm.plugins.migrations version 28
>>
>> Use reports "lots of stating, unlinking, and linking of all the symlinks
>> in /var/lib/pulb" if that helps.
>>
>> Another user reports ~6 hours on 176G of data.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>     ____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     Michael____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>     On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 7:23 AM, Eric Helms <ehelms at redhat.com
>>     <mailto:ehelms at redhat.com>> wrote:____
>>
>>         Howdy,____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         We (Katello) have had users reporting incredibly long upgrade
>>         times when upgrading from 2.6 to 2.8. This occurs during the
>>         pulp-manage-db step that is run as the beginning of our
>>         installers upgrade process. Based on the numbers below, does
>>         this make sense at all?____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         Some numbers:____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         18 hour upgrade____
>>
>>         1.5 TB /var/lib/pulp____
>>
>>         100GB MongoDB____
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         __ __
>>
>>         Thanks,____
>>
>>         Eric____
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         Pulp-list mailing list
>>         Pulp-list at redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-list at redhat.com>
>>         https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list____
>>
>>     __ __
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>     Information in this e-mail may be confidential. It is intended only
>>     for the addressee(s) identified above. If you are not the
>>     addressee(s), or an employee or agent of the addressee(s), please
>>     note that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
>>     communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>>     e-mail in error, please notify the sender of the error.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160701/4f05aeb6/attachment.htm>