the goal from our side is to have a very similar experience to the
user. Today the user would:
* run a command (for example, something similar to hammer content-view
version export --content-view-name=foobar --version=1.0)
* this creates a tarball on disk
* they copy the tarball to external media
* they move the external media to the disconnected katello
* they run 'hammer content-view version import --export-tar=/path/to/tarball
I don't see this changing much for the user, anything additional that
needs to be done in pulp can be done behind the cli/api in katello. Thanks!
Justin
On 2/19/20 12:52 PM, Dennis Kliban wrote:
In Katello that uses Pulp 2, what steps does the user need to take
when importing an export into an air gapped environment? I am
concerned about making the process more complicated than what the user
is already used to.
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:20 AM David Davis <davidda...@redhat.com
<mailto:davidda...@redhat.com>> wrote:
Thanks for the responses so far. I think we could export
publications along with the repo version by exporting any
publication that points to a repo version.
My concern with exporting repositories is that users will probably
get a bunch of content they don't care about if they want to
export a single repo version. That said, if users do want to
export entire repos, we could add this feature later I think?
David
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 10:30 AM Justin Sherrill
<jsher...@redhat.com <mailto:jsher...@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 2/14/20 1:09 PM, David Davis wrote:
Grant and I met today to discuss importers and exporters[0]
and we'd like some feedback before we proceed with the
design. To sum up this feature briefly: users can export a
repository version from one Pulp instance and import it to
another.
# Master/Detail vs Core
So one fundamental question is whether we should use a
Master/Detail approach or just have core control the flow but
call out to plugins to get export formats.
To give some background: we currently define Exporters (ie
FileSystemExporter) in core as Master models. Plugins extend
this model which allows them to configure or customize the
Exporter. This was necessary because some plugins need to
export Publications (along with repository metadata) while
other plugins who don't have Publications or metadata export
RepositoryVersions.
The other option is to have core handle the workflow. The
user would call a core endpoint and provide a
RepositoryVersion. This would work because for
importing/exporting, you wouldn't ever use Publications
because metadata won't be used for importing back into Pulp.
If needed, core could provide a way for plugin writers to
write custom handlers/exporters for content types.
If we go with the second option, the question then becomes
whether we should divorce the concept of Exporters and
import/export. Or do we also switch Exporters from
Master/Detail to core only?
# Foreign Keys
Content can be distributed across multiple tables (eg
UpdateRecord has UpdateCollection, etc). In our export, we
could either use primary keys (UUIDs) or natural keys to
relate records. The former assumes that UUIDs are unique
across Pulp instances. The safer but more complex alternative
is to use natural keys. This would involve storing a set of
fields on a record that would be used to identify a related
record.
# Incremental Exports
There are two big pieces of data contained in an export: the
dataset of Content from the database and the artifact files.
An incremental export cuts down on the size of an export by
only exporting the differences. However, when performing an
incremental export, we could still export the complete
dataset instead of just a set of differences
(additions/removals/updates). This approach would be simpler
and it would allow us to ensure that the new repo version
matches the exported repo version exactly. It would however
increase the export size but not by much I think--probably
some number of megabytes at most.
If its simper, i would go with that. Saving even ~100-200 MB
isn't that big of a deal IMO. the biggest savings is in the
RPM content.
[0] https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6134
David
_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev@redhat.com>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
_______________________________________________
Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev@redhat.com <mailto: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
