Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Measure Pulp's ability to scale to high #s of client requests #1902

Open
pulpbot opened this issue Jan 17, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Measure Pulp's ability to scale to high #s of client requests #1902

pulpbot opened this issue Jan 17, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@pulpbot
Copy link
Member

pulpbot commented Jan 17, 2022

Author: @dralley (dalley)

Redmine Issue: 6928, https://pulp.plan.io/issues/6928


Pulp 3 has a more complicated architecture on the externally-facing side than Pulp 2 does. Whereas Pulp 2 wrote directories of symlinks and relied on a web server (Apache) to serve them as a static directly, Pulp 2 has a custom app which services incoming requests by matching their paths against paths stored in the database.

This means that as the # of clients being simultaneously served scales up, so too does the load on the database. We should measure this impact to gain an understanding of how Pulp 3 is likely to behave in a real-world scenario where many thousands of clients may be requesting packages from a Pulp installation and, concurrently, Pulp administrative tasks such as sync and publish may be loading the database as well.

One possible way of testing this would be to create a Kubernetes cluster of "package consumer" agents which can be scaled as desired for the testing.

We would also need some kind of monitoring - but I do not have any suggestions on how this should be accomplished.

This testing should occur in advance of any dev-freeze date, so that we have time to make adjustments if they are found to be necessary.

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented May 25, 2022

This issue has been marked 'stale' due to lack of recent activity. If there is no further activity, the issue will be closed in another 30 days. Thank you for your contribution!

@stale stale bot added the stale label May 25, 2022
@dralley dralley removed the stale label May 25, 2022
@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented May 25, 2022

This issue is no longer marked for closure.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants