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 <davidda...@redhat.com> 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 <kfiresm...@gmail.com> > 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 <davidda...@redhat.com> >> 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 < >>> jeff-l-mil...@uiowa.edu> 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:* pulp-list-boun...@redhat.com [mailto:pulp-list-bounces@redh >>>> at.com] *On Behalf Of *David Davis >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 8, 2016 8:08 AM >>>> *To:* pulp-list@redhat.com >>>> *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 >>> Pulp-list@redhat.com >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-list mailing list > Pulp-list@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list