dalley has learned how to do some debugging already, so maybe he can look at doing a demo. Good suggestion, Kersom. It would be good to link to in a blog post - and also point out the good demo @bmbouter put together for pulp 2.
great job @dalley & @bmbouter on the blog post! On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Kersom <ker...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev