delete published rpms from the cache #2133
Conversation
| @@ -9,3 +9,5 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| # Publish the repo - stderr/out redirect is required to stop the noninteractive shell from hanging | |||
| rsync --recursive --times --verbose --one-file-system --delete-after <%= @home %>/rsync_cache/$PROJECT/$RELEASE <%= @yum_directory %>/$PROJECT/ 2>&1 >/dev/null ; | |||
| # Cleanup - no need to keep the rpms | |||
| find <%= @home %>/rsync_cache/$PROJECT/$RELEASE -iname '*.rpm' -delete || true | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this is taken from the Debian cleanup. technically we could also yank the whole folder here with an rm -rf, what's you preference?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would have thought we do not delete the cache so that we do not have to re-sync things that have already been synced and saved time and cost.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, today I had to delete things to be able to upload new things.
Like, there was a full 3.9 that we never will publish again in the cache.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should it become part of retiring a release? Make it part of a procedure?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It certainly could, even tho I don't like that too much as such things tend to get forgotten.
|
A Cron job that cleans up caches that are more than a certain age? Like a
month? Or are not in the current supported release list?
…On Fri, Sep 20, 2024, 2:21 PM Evgeni Golov ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In puppet/modules/web/templates/deploy-stagingyum.sh.erb
<#2133 (comment)>
:
> @@ -9,3 +9,5 @@
# Publish the repo - stderr/out redirect is required to stop the noninteractive shell from hanging
rsync --recursive --times --verbose --one-file-system --delete-after <%= @home %>/rsync_cache/$PROJECT/$RELEASE <%= @yum_directory %>/$PROJECT/ 2>&1 >/dev/null ;
+ # Cleanup - no need to keep the rpms
+ find <%= @home %>/rsync_cache/$PROJECT/$RELEASE -iname '*.rpm' -delete || true
It certainly could, even tho I don't like that too much as such things
tend to get forgotten.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#2133 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACHT42YWZX56QARUYRZXBLZXRRSFAVCNFSM6AAAAABORROY5OVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMZDGMJYHE4DCOJXGU>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
Could we use |
|
Today the cache and the repos are on different partitions, so hardlinks wouldn't work. But we could change that. Cronjob is probably easier? |
|
I'd like to change that since it's less IO, making it faster |
No description provided.