> > No, this is with 0.4.0, since 0.5.0 is quite new I haven't updated yet. > Will do so and try again. >
If it's 0.4.0, then this is actually not surprising after all. This was a bug that was fixed in 0.5.0 https://pulp.plan.io/issues/7280 On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 12:45 PM Winberg Adam <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is with the very latest version of the migration plugin (0.5.0)? > No, this is with 0.4.0, since 0.5.0 is quite new I haven't updated yet. > Will do so and try again. > > > Is it actually equally long, or just not 'reasonably' faster? Is it > only the "migrating rpm content to Pulp 3 erratum" sub-item which reports > doing a lot of work or are many of them doing so? > I would say that the runtime is very similar. And it looks like many if > not all sub-items are repeating their work but since the 'pulp3 erratum' is > the longest running that's the one that stands out. Here are some progress > reports on a subsequent run which should only resulted in a handful of new > rpm's: > { > "code": "migrating.rpm.content", > "done": 32348, > "message": "Migrating rpm content to Pulp 3 rpm", > "state": "completed", > "suffix": null, > "total": 32348 > }, > { > "code": "premigrating.content.general", > "done": 89690, > "message": "Pre-migrating Pulp 2 ERRATUM content (general info)", > "state": "completed", > "suffix": null, > "total": 89690 > }, > { > "code": "premigrating.content.general", > "done": 39, > "message": "Pre-migrating Pulp 2 RPM content (general info)", > "state": "completed", > "suffix": null, > "total": 43 > }, > { > "code": "migrating.rpm.content", > "done": 89690, > "message": "Migrating rpm content to Pulp 3 erratum", > "state": "completed", > "suffix": null, > "total": 89690 > }, > > Should these numbers be 0 on a subsequent run if nothing has changed? > > //Adam > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Daniel Alley <[email protected]> > *Sent:* 23 October 2020 17:33 > *To:* Winberg Adam > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Pulp-list] 2to3-migration takes a long time > > Hey Adam, > > It's not expected for subsequent migrations to take equally long, that is > strange and concerning. This is with the very latest version of the > migration plugin (0.5.0)? Is it actually equally long, or just not > 'reasonably' faster? Is it only the "migrating rpm content to Pulp 3 > erratum" sub-item which reports doing a lot of work or are many of them > doing so? > > I do have some good news though, the 6-7 hour runtime will improve > significantly once you can upgrade to 3.7.2 (which doesn't look like it has > been pushed to the Foreman repositories yet). There was a significant > performance regression introduced by 3.7.0 which has been fixed, and in my > testing migrations only took a bit more than 1/3 as long as they had been > taking previously. > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 10:47 AM Winberg Adam <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Depending on the size of your pulp2 installation I understand that the >> 2to3migration can take quite some time. In my environment it takes approx. >> 6-7hrs. However, I expect consecutive migrations to be faster, based on the >> documentation: >> >> "When you are ready to switch to Pulp 3: run migration, then stop Pulp 2 >> services (so no new data is coming in), run migration for the last time (it >> should not take long)." >> >> >> But all my migration runs are equally long, the 'sub-task' "Migrating >> rpm content to Pulp 3 erratum" processes about 90000 items every time which >> takes a long time. Is this expected behaviour? >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
