Our initial assumption of pulp_workers records being cleaned up when pulp_celerybeat is down is false. The pulp_workers clean up [0] is being done in celerybeat [1] and not with a SIGTERM handler.
What this means is that if `systemctl stop pulp_celerybeat` is ran before `systemctl stop pulp_workers` our current pulp-manage-db logic will erroneously display the user prompt. Since this is the case I think we should remove the pulp-manage-db running worker detection feature for this release (but keep the celerybeat cleanup) and look into other solutions. [0] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/master/server/pulp/server/async/worker_watcher.py#L85-L105 [1] https://github.com/pulp/pulp/blob/master/server/pulp/server/async/scheduler.py#L75 On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 to reopening 2468 and excluding pulp_celerybeat records from the check, > and holding 2.11 until this is resolved > > Note that ^ would allow us to remove the known issues problem from the > release notes which should also be done[0] > > +1 to removing the y/N interactive prompt which would also allow us to > close this PR [1]. > > Also, we should close 2472 as NOTABUG or WORKSFORME as I commented on here > [2]. > > [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/2878/files#diff- > 6852a97801e832e280bae8ad6507338aR34 > [1]: https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/2874 > [2]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2472#note-8 > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Michael Hrivnak <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> We've re-opened issue #2468, and Bihan is going to make the PR that >> implements this change. If there are any additional questions or concerns, >> please bring them up ASAP. >> >> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2468 >> >> Thanks! >> Michael >> >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Sean Myers <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 12/07/2016 08:59 AM, Bihan Zhang wrote: >>> > +1 excluding pulp_celerybeat >>> > >>> > Also since we have the --ignore-running-workers flag and are ignoring >>> > celerybeat I would like to propose we stop prompting the user to >>> continue >>> > and instead just display an error message when we detect running >>> workers: >>> > 'Migration halted because there are still running workers, please stop >>> all >>> > workers before re-running this command. If you believe this message was >>> > given in error please re-run the command with the >>> --ignore-running-workers >>> > flag' >>> >>> I think doing what's proposed would fix #2472. Add that to the fixes >>> from #2768 and #2769 and this should be good to ship another RC. >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
