anaconda performance thoughts

[Thomas Dodd]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Jeremy Katz wrote:
>>We used to do this in the 7.2 timeframe, but the time difference on an
>>install was negligible. 
> 
> it's not the HD that is keeping up things - it's the non-overlap of CDROM
> and HD IO that hurts. We use the CDROM, then we use the HD to install the
> rpm, then we use the CDROM again, etc. - instead of using them in parallel
> and cutting latencies into half.

I wouldn't expect much gain if the CD is the slave device and the HD the 
Master on 1 IDE channel. I know lot's of systems setup like that. My 
normal system has to HDs with software raid, both masters, So the CD has 
to be a slave device. Both HDs are masters to improve their performance, 
it sucked when they were on the same channel.

Fetching the next RPM while installing one would likely help for network 
  installs. For local installs, HD or CD, should probably check the 
devices to see if they are a master/slave pair (hda+hdb, hdc+hdd, etc).
Not sure how to find the underlying devices for a raid device though.

	-Thomas