At the proper time, a demo about the Pulp 3 task system will be very beneficial. I am thinking about something similar what it was done for Pulp 2.
Looking forward for this. Regards, On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 10:32 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > All PRs have Travis showing green and all necessary LGTMs. The plan is to > merge next Tuesday the 15th, which means it will be in core Beta 4. > > Yesterday, @dalley and I published a blog post which outlines the change > for users along with a porting guide for plugins to port onto RQ as well. > > https://pulpproject.org/2018/05/08/pulp3-moving-to-rq/ > > Thank you to everyone for the help, collaboration, and energy on this > significant change. > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> I've finished my review and resolved all of the 'blocker' issues that >> were uncovered during testing. Overall, I'm highly confident that this is >> a better path forwards than the continued use of Celery / Kombu. There are >> a couple of outstanding edge cases to be resolved eventually, which I plan >> to file as issues post-merge, but nothing serious or intractable. >> >> If there are no objections, I think it would be reasonable to merge this >> code after this week's beta builds are published (after, in order to avoid >> major changes during Summit / PyCon prep time). >> >> Thank you, Brian, for doing the planning and work needed to make this >> happen. It was a lot of effort and is very highly appreciated. >> >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Through several rebases, now all PRs are showing the RQ PRs on Travis as >>> passing with pulp-smash. Several points of feedback have been addressed. >>> >>> If you're interested in commenting on these PRs or trying them out, >>> please do. I hope to merge after the other taking system maintainers >>> @dalley and @daviddavis have finished their testing/review and barring any >>> other calls for delay or blocking concerns. >>> >>> If there are any questions, issues, or concerns, please reach out, and >>> we can talk through them. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 4:18 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I put together a prototype and posted the PRs. I'm still working to get >>>> Travis happy, but locally 100% of smash tests using these branches. It's >>>> worked very reliably for me so far. There are no gaps in the pulp feature >>>> set on top of RQ. >>>> >>>> I hope people test it out and give some feedback. See the commit >>>> messages for details on what was done. Here are the PRs: >>>> >>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp/pull/3454 >>>> https://github.com/pulp/pulp_file/pull/72 >>>> https://github.com/pulp/devel/pull/146 >>>> https://github.com/PulpQE/pulp-smash/pull/960 >>>> >>>> Feel free to send questions here or to the PR. Any feedback is welcome. >>>> >>>> -Brian >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 5:28 PM, Milan Kovacik <mkova...@redhat.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 I like RQ and I like http://python-rq.org/docs/testing/ esp. >>>>> there's Fakeredis ;) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> milan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 6:58 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > Thanks for all the discussion both on list and on irc. After more >>>>> > investigation, it sounds like there are no feature gaps, but we will >>>>> need to >>>>> > incorporate this workaround to cancel a task that is already running. >>>>> > >>>>> > The feedback I've heard on the idea is that it's valuable and looks >>>>> > feasible, but we won't really know until we prototype it a bit. >>>>> Based on the >>>>> > technical outline in the previous email, I believe it can be >>>>> prototyped in a >>>>> > day or two. I plan to do this soon, once I contribute to a few other >>>>> > required-for-beta planning items first. I'll post my PR to see what >>>>> other >>>>> > think of the change, probably next week. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Daniel Alley <dal...@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I meant in the sense that, what is the aftermath when it comes back >>>>> >> online, and is it screwed up in ways that cause side effects. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 5:02 PM, Jeremy Audet <jau...@redhat.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> > RQ does not support revoking tasks. If you send the worker a >>>>> SIGINT, >>>>> >>> > it will finish the task and then stop processing new ones. If >>>>> you send the >>>>> >>> > worker SIGKILL, it will stop immediately, but I don't think it >>>>> gracefully >>>>> >>> > handles this circumstance. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nothing handles SIGKILL gracefully. Processes can't catch that >>>>> signal. >>>>> >>> `kill -9 $pid` sends SIGKILL. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> If one is looking for a way to gracefully, immediately kill an RQ >>>>> >>> worker, then SIGTERM may do the trick. Anecdotally, many processes >>>>> >>> handle this signal in a hurried fashion. Semantically, this is >>>>> >>> appropriate: SIGINT is the "terminal interrupt" signal (Ctrl+c >>>>> sends >>>>> >>> SIGINT), whereas SIGTERM is the "termination signal." >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > Pulp-dev mailing list >>>>> > Pulp-dev@redhat.com >>>>> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
