I agree that given what we've learned today, we should pull the feature from 2.11 and re-think our options for implementing it.
Michael On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Bihan Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > 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-6852a97801 >> e832e280bae8ad6507338aR34 >> [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
