IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tools-implementation] Revisiting whether we should continue using Docker as we currently do.

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Wed, 09 September 2020 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: tools-implementation@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-implementation@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57F623A0B85 for <tools-implementation@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 11:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.228
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.948, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id awmvlkXGVtKt for <tools-implementation@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 11:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FCC43A0AA7 for <tools-implementation@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Sep 2020 11:08:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from unescapeable.local ([47.186.30.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 089I83KV070584 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 9 Sep 2020 13:08:04 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1599674884; bh=gxZeyDLMdtwkHVCNDh1gizGMKf0ZwSNI9Dg1Et6TRTU=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=RPLM3JVl4R7GrhwL0dBPRa+eXAz19zPQZ1m2uV1Rdva/66/1ktrB4Dxp79p17jJXX lnGFVN2Rrthzh5Ck5meYY/fW8QK4Hw8Ubn1NwV+1cFDTD8LHU/3qhKIVshCjAvRpKg XCUcG9BWFgG0Qhe5/eWc0yVR7rugjdUfL9Qj18A0=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [47.186.30.41] claimed to be unescapeable.local
To: Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>, "tools-implementation@ietf.org" <tools-implementation@ietf.org>
References: <3ae28788-898a-de72-22b6-b0f036d1b23a@nostrum.com> <55624944-8b1b-317b-94fe-3212d6ef60fe@levkowetz.com>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <1c0ac174-c75d-4af5-f54a-3419b854d189@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 13:08:02 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <55624944-8b1b-317b-94fe-3212d6ef60fe@levkowetz.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-implementation/uymQz_2EsD6CgpVbpsk7SFgGkHY>
Subject: Re: [Tools-implementation] Revisiting whether we should continue using Docker as we currently do.
X-BeenThere: tools-implementation@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Tools Implementation <tools-implementation.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tools-implementation>, <mailto:tools-implementation-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-implementation/>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-implementation@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-implementation-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tools-implementation>, <mailto:tools-implementation-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2020 18:08:07 -0000

On 9/9/20 12:55 PM, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On 2020-09-09 18:21, Robert Sparks wrote:
>
>> So I again suggest that we unroll for the production deploys, at least
>> for now. I think we can unroll everything at this point, but there might
>> still be a hitch in unrolling the trac instances. Henrik - could you
>> remind me what our thinking was with respect to those?
> Since we're now running apache with a python 3.6 mod_wsgi, we cannot run
> Trac under mod_wsgi until it's available for Python 3.  (There's progress,
> but it's not there yet).  Which means moving it to nginx if we're not going
> to use Docker.
Glen mentioned possibly using mod_wsgi-express to run a separate apache 
instance that loaded the 2.7 module rather than the 3.6 module?
>
>
> 	Henrik
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email