On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Bihan Zhang <[email protected]> wrote:
> The changes made for #2186 [0] was pulled from the 2.11.0 release > yesterday, and we should talk about how to implement it for 2.12 > > From what I can see there are 2 ways to move forward with #2186 > > *1.* We can fix the pulp worker db record cleanup so that pulp_celerybeat > exits cleanly (aka put this back: [1]) and make new changes to clean up > pulp_workers with a SIGTERM handler in a 2.11.z release. > We can then re-revert the commit and put the feature back in 2.12 with > little effort. > We would also need a way for pulp-manage-db to know if a record in the Worker collection was created by a version of pulp that does not do full cleanup. As described in a previous email, one way would be to add some kind of new field to the Worker model, such as the version of pulp the worker was running. > > The original reason #2186 was implemented using the db records was so we > can support a clustered pulp installation. > But this approach would make migration to 2.12 more difficult, since users > now have to upgrade to the 2.11.z release first before going to 2.12 > > Perhaps the original intent was lost. This feature was motivated primarily by katello deployments (all of which are single-system), where users either forgot to stop pulp services or didn't know that was a requirement before running pulp-manage-db. The normal upgrade process for them handles it automatically, but when manual intervention is required, that's where we've seen people running pulp-manage-db while pulp services are running. > *2. *We can rethinking our approach to #2186 and perform the check > against the process list > Upgrade-wise implementing it this way is a lot easier for users, since > they can do a straight upgrade to 2.12 without going through an > intermediary release. > The downside is that in clustered environments this would not catch every > potential error. But #2186 is a best effort story, and if this is the best > effort I am ok with it. > This is easy and effective. I think we should do it, and augment/replace it in the future with the worker checking. > Regardless of which option we go with I think we should get the pulp > worker db cleanup in. > We should also have a --ignore-running-worker flag [2] to prevent > automated upgrade problems. > > > [0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2186 > [1] https://github.com/werwty/pulp/commit/4f43a85dd568f4a0b5 > 0ae9b07bbec7138861e92b#diff-80e8b96df1f5da9a551bb6ff18dea352 > [2] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2469 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
