Description of problem: katello-restore --skip-pulp-content should be a valid option, then the next scheduled sync or a manual sync should rebuild the contents of /var/lib/pulp appropriately. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 6.2.10 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. katello-restore does not offer this option 2. 3. Actual results: katello-restore does not offer this option Expected results: Regardless of whether backups include pulp content or not, katello-restore should allow the user the option to skip the requirement to restore the pulp-content. If --skip-pulp-content is used, then the next scheduled sync or manual sync should rebuild the contents of /var/lib/pulp appropriately. Additional info: This greatly alleviates backup window and backup volume issues with larger deployments and depending on the customer may decrease recovery time. This would likely then require full resyncs of downstream systems like... capsules...
Fixed in Upstream, should be in 6.4
How is this fixed upstream?! The attached Foreman Issue Tracker link is still open.... It's still not an option for the restore command in 6.4 (now "foreman-maintain restore", instead of katello-restore), which is what this bug was all about. You can use the option with the backup command ("foreman-maintain backup [offline/online]"), but there's no way to do a restore with the pulp content missing. Can this please be re-opened and addressed in a future update? It would be really nice to be able to not have to store all the pulp RPM content on disk in the backup (content which can easily be restoring by doing a sync with RH CDN).
The Satellite Team is attempting to provide an accurate backlog of bugzilla requests which we feel will be resolved in the next few releases. We do not believe this bugzilla will meet that criteria, and have plans to close it out in 1 month. This is not a reflection on the validity of the request, but a reflection of the many priorities for the product. If you have any concerns about this, feel free to contact Red Hat Technical Support or your account team. If we do not hear from you, we will close this bug out. Thank you.
Thank you for your interest in Satellite 6. We have evaluated this request, and while we recognize that it is a valid request, we do not expect this to be implemented in the product in the foreseeable future. This is due to other priorities for the product, and not a reflection on the request itself. We are therefore closing this out as WONTFIX. If you have any concerns about this, please do not reopen. Instead, feel free to contact Red Hat Technical Support. Thank you.
Moving this bug to POST for triage into Satellite since the upstream issue https://projects.theforeman.org/issues/21240 has been resolved.
*** Bug 2236242 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Hi All, For my part, the customer that kicked this off has long ago gone down another route. They are now using ansible automation to rebuild the configuration from code. They lose some history from Satellite with this methodology, but it consistently gives them the desired config, optimizes storage, and provides allow for quickly creating systems for testing, etc.. For my customer, there is no longer a requirement for this RFE. Regards, Paul
That would be a neat feature too. Maybe satellite could auto-generate a script/playbook which reproduces the setup.
Please see: http://github.com/redhat-cop/rhis-builder This is the builder code. We need hammer or similar to ouput the yaml consumed by this project. This should be a separate RFE. I have texted back and forth with Eric previously.
Upon review of our valid but aging backlog the Satellite Team has concluded that this Bugzilla does not meet the criteria for a resolution in the near term, and are planning to close in a month. This message may be a repeat of a previous update and the bug is again being considered to be closed. If you have any concerns about this, please contact your Red Hat Account team. Thank you.
Based upon feedback during auto-closure, leaving this bugzilla open a while longer for additional investigation; however, it may be closed in a future iteration.