Re: [Pulp-list] Pulp in production
we had the issues you mentioned with 2.8.3, updated to 2.8.4 and so far (+/- 1 month I guess) is working smooth. On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 2:57 AM, wrote: > I am looking for recommendations on what release of Pulp is recommended > for production deployments. > > We have been running Pulp 2.3 in production for the past year and are > currently building out new production infrastructure to deploy our new > production Pulp environment on top of. > > We planned to deploy the latest stable release of Pulp which at the time > was Pulp version 2.8.3. > > We have Pulp 2.8.3 running on the new infra and are currently dealing with > various pulp tasks hanging with State: Waiting and Start Time: Unstarted > > I've noticed that the Katello project has recently upgraded their stable > release (3.0 currently) to use Pulp 2.8.4 packages located here: > > https://fedorapeople.org/groups/katello/releases/yum/3.0/pulp/el7/x86_64/ > > And previously Pulp 2.6 was used as the stable packages for Katello > (skipping Pulp 2.7 altogether). > > For production deployments is Pulp 2.8.x the recommended release to use, > or should people be deploying Pulp 2.9.x in prod, or just skip Pulp 2.9.x > and use for devel environments only? > > Hopefully this question makes sense to you. It would be nice if the Pulp > project had some sort of LTS release (Long Term Support) to help guide > users to the most stable branch of development. > > > ___ > 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
Re: [Pulp-list] Pulp 2.9.1 Beta 1 Now Available
We had an odd documentation issue in the docker plugin that Brian Bouterse took care of[0], so I've pushed a release to just that plugin, bumping us from 2.0.3-0.1.beta on the docker packages to 2.0.3-0.2.beta. This change has no impact on the code being run, so no action needs to be taken if you're running the 2.9 beta and see the new docker plugin get installed. 2.9.1 is still expected to be Generally Available next Tuesday, July 26, but now we'll release it with working documentation. :) /me turns on Homer Simpson's "Everything is OK" alarm[1]. [0]: https://github.com/pulp/pulp_docker/pull/163 [1]: https://simpsonswiki.com/wiki/Everything%27s_OK_alarm signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
[Pulp-list] Pulp in production
I am looking for recommendations on what release of Pulp is recommended for production deployments. We have been running Pulp 2.3 in production for the past year and are currently building out new production infrastructure to deploy our new production Pulp environment on top of. We planned to deploy the latest stable release of Pulp which at the time was Pulp version 2.8.3. We have Pulp 2.8.3 running on the new infra and are currently dealing with various pulp tasks hanging with State: Waiting and Start Time: Unstarted I've noticed that the Katello project has recently upgraded their stable release (3.0 currently) to use Pulp 2.8.4 packages located here: https://fedorapeople.org/groups/katello/releases/yum/3.0/pulp/el7/x86_64/ And previously Pulp 2.6 was used as the stable packages for Katello (skipping Pulp 2.7 altogether). For production deployments is Pulp 2.8.x the recommended release to use, or should people be deploying Pulp 2.9.x in prod, or just skip Pulp 2.9.x and use for devel environments only? Hopefully this question makes sense to you. It would be nice if the Pulp project had some sort of LTS release (Long Term Support) to help guide users to the most stable branch of development. ___ Pulp-list mailing list Pulp-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-list
