One option we haven't talked about much that may be possible in Pulp 3: what if one Pulp deployment could retrieve repositories and content from another Pulp deployment, using only the REST API. Since the new REST API is heavily auto-generated, adding endpoints for data models is relatively low-cost. As long as we could expose the contents of a repo, and the full representation of each content unit in that repo (including its files) via the REST API, one Pulp could retrieve the full representations of a repo and its contents and store them locally.
Once we get versioned repositories implemented (not planned for 3.0, but hopefully not long after), we could even think about a mirroring situation where one Pulp can see exactly what changed in a repo on a remote Pulp, and efficiently propagate those changes locally. But like I said, these ideas have not been vetted or even thought through yet. Commentary is welcome! Michael On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 4:19 PM, David Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > Correct on both points. The normal sync+publish doesn’t have full feature > parity with Nodes. In fact, another feature that comes to mind besides > syncing of user metadata on repositories is that the strategies that were > supported for syncing content across Nodes is going away. > > > David > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Mihai Ibanescu <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Two things that come to mind: >> >> * if nodes was indeed replicating the pulp user metadata (of which I am >> unsure), then you will have to make it clear that going with repo syncs is >> not quite equivalent >> * sync runs are asynchronous calls. If a call runs for too long, there >> may be more than one sync task scheduled. An in-app scheduler could >> potentially notice that there is already a pending sync and not schedule >> another one. cron/systemd would have a harder time peeking into the task >> list. >> >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 9:38 AM, David Davis <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Kodiak, >>> >>> I think Katello is using sync schedules but they have some other >>> solution lined up for when we drop them in 3.0. I am not sure of the exact >>> details. >>> >>> The main reason for dropping sync schedules was to keep the 3.0 MVP as >>> small as possible and we felt like we could offload the functionality onto >>> other tools like cron which are much more specialized and better able to >>> deal with scheduling. If enough users want scheduled syncs back though, we >>> may take a look at adding it in a 3.x release. >>> >>> Hope that answers your question. >>> >>> David >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Kodiak Firesmith <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm good with this mostly just because Pulp 2.x schedules left a lot to >>>> be desired. It would have been nice if they were more like roles where you >>>> could create a schedule once, eg: DAILY-0030, and associate multiple repos >>>> w/ it. >>>> >>>> I'm guessing you are dropping scheduling because Katello handles >>>> scheduling on it's own? >>>> >>>> - Kodiak >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 2:20 PM, David Davis <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jeffrey, >>>>> >>>>> That’s a great question. We are not in fact planning to support sync >>>>> schedules in 3.0. We’re encouraging users to use other tools like cron and >>>>> systemd timers instead. Here’s an overview of what we’re planning for Pulp >>>>> 3.0: >>>>> >>>>> https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp_3_Minimum_Viable_Product >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Miller, Jeffrey L < >>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> David, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is scheduling syncs also being removed? I see the blog post is using >>>>>> cron to sync or publish the repository instead of setting a schedule. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -Jeffrey >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:pulp-list-bounces@redh >>>>>> at.com] *On Behalf Of *David Davis >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 8, 2016 8:08 AM >>>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>>> *Subject:* [Pulp-list] Deprecating Pulp Nodes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We wrote a blog post about removing Nodes in Pulp 3.0 but I figured >>>>>> I'd sent out an email as well in order to increase visibility. Nodes will >>>>>> be officially deprecated in Pulp 2.12 and then removed in Pulp 3.0. For >>>>>> more information about why we deprecated Nodes and how you can reproduce >>>>>> their functionality using a standard install of Pulp, check out the blog >>>>>> post: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://pulpproject.org/2016/12/07/deprecating-nodes/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Feel free to respond with any questions or concerns. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> David >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Pulp-list mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pulp-list mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
