On 3 May 2017 2:57:32 AM NZST, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Dagan, With s/Nagios/nginx/ I much better understand your note. What >I'm >hearing is that it would be valuable for Pulp to be able to run on >other >webserver+WSGI stacks like Nginx and uWSGI. That is great feedback. > >Besides the general availability of configuration files, I think there >are >only two things (I know of) which prevent Pulp from running on another >stack currently: > >1) Content protection. With httpd, access scripts are used so to reach >a >yes/no decision if a client is allowed to have a given piece of content >based on the certificate they present. > >2) mod_xsendfile functionality. This is what lets Pulp set a special >header >which tells httpd the path of the file to return for that request. This >allows us to keep the content in the DB and at request-time tell httpd >which piece of content should be received for that request. We >wouldneed >something similar > >We would really like some help determining if things like nginx can >support >the above two use cases. > >-Brian > >On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Dagan McGregor <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2 May 2017 3:20:28 AM NZST, Brian Bouterse <[email protected]> >wrote: >>> >>> Hi Dagen, >>> >>> For Pulp 3.0.0, the feature set is mostly known with user use cases >>> tracked in a document on the wiki. The doc [0] is written as a >minimum >>> viable product so we can deliver something that provides Pulp's core >value >>> in a timely manner and then we can add features to it over time. >Some >>> notable gaps include no authorization, nodes has been removed, and >so have >>> scheduled calls. One notable addition is a legitimate Plugin API to >ease >>> the burden for plugin writers adding content support. >>> >>> Pulp3 will only use PostgreSQL, which will entirely replace Pulp's >usage >>> of mongodb. It's good to hear this will match your standard >operating >>> environment. >>> >>> In terms of Nagios, I'm more familiar with that as a management >system >>> instead of httpd. I'd have to hear more about what you would like in >terms >>> Nagios support. In terms of using Nagios for monitoring, the Status >API is >>> available in Pulp2 and will also be in Pulp3. >>> >>> There is a developer mailing list called pulp-dev which is where >most of >>> the Pulp3 discussion is currently happening. You can join it [1] or >read >>> the archives [2]. We also have weekly calls [3] where each week we >refine a >>> section of the MVP with more details. >>> >>> If you have specific use cases, suggestions, or ideas, please let us >>> know! We would really like some alpha/beta testing, which we hope to >be >>> starting soon but we are just a bit early for. Right now making sure >the >>> use cases are sound is one of the best ways to contribute. >>> >>> [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/projects/pulp/wiki/Pulp_3_Minimum_Viabl >>> e_Product >>> [1]: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >>> [2]: https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/ >>> [3]: >https://www.redhat.com/archives/pulp-list/2017-April/msg00010.html >>> >>> -Brian >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 6:38 PM, Dagan McGregor <[email protected]> >wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I have been looking at installing Pulp for managing our local rpm >>>> repositories and I am curious about what changes are planned or >confirmed >>>> for Pulp 3.0. >>>> >>>> Our site standard is to run PostgreSQL and Nagios for services >wherever >>>> possible, having migrated off httpd. >>>> >>>> Will Pulp 3.0 continue using MongoDB or will other databases like >>>> PostgreSQL be supported as well? >>>> >>>> And are there any plans to have Nagios support alongside the >current >>>> httpd? >>>> >>>> I did find a blog article but nothing else mentioned. I am happy to >help >>>> with some testing if it would be useful. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Dagan McGregor >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pulp-list mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list >>>> >>> >>> >> Hi Brian, >> >> Thanks for the reply. >> >> I had a major brain fade. I meant to say *Nginx support* for web >services. >> >> As Homer would say, D'oh! >> >> I see the current design uses httpd and mod_wsgi. I assume not all >> features may match with using something like Nginx and uWSGi. >> >> It would be nice as an option if possible, if changes are still being >> considered. >> >> I will join the dev list to follow the discussions there. >> >> Cheers, >> Dagan McGregor >> >> >> >> >>
Hi Brian, I remember having a look for the XSendFile support after reading the blog post. Nginx does have support in a different way to httpd. https://www.nginx.com/resources/wiki/start/topics/examples/xsendfile/ I am not sure about the content protection and running scripts. I would have to look further. Cheers, Dagan McGregor
_______________________________________________ Pulp-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
