Rawhide First Impressions

[John Summerfield]

seth vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 11:40 +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
>> seth vidal wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 10:13 +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
>>>> seth vidal wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2008-03-31 at 00:44 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
>>>>>> Good impressions:
>>>>>>  * The new package kit package management is awesome and seems a lot
>>>>>> faster than pup/pirut.
>>>>> yum is faster, package kit is just seeing advantages from that. If you
>>>> yum has been glacial recently; when was this improvement released on us?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 3.2.12 and 13 are much faster than others. Measured as such, in fact.
>>> What are you seeing as 'glacial'?
>> hours on this:
> 
> 
> Hours doing What?
> 
> What command had been run? 3.2.13 is faster than 3.2.12 but nothing like hours.

One of these:
yum --disablerepo=development upgrade
yum upgrade
yum --disablerepo=development upgrade
yum --disablerepo=rawhide* upgrade
yum --disablerepo=rawhide* upgrade --exclude=*xine*
yum --disablerepo=rawhide* upgrade -
yum --disablerepo=rawhide* upgrade
yum --disablerepo=rawhide* upgrade --exclude=*xine*
[root at potoroo ~]#

Note that I have a mirror of development and use that; it's on the wrong 
side of a wireless link, but has to be better than pulling off the 
Internet through the wireless link.

Looking at my logs:
[root at potoroo log]# grep -H yum-3 yum.log*
yum.log-20080305:Mar 05 07:41:02 Updated: yum-3.2.12-1.fc9.noarch
yum.log-20080327:Mar 06 08:18:12 Updated: yum-3.2.12-3.fc9.noarch
yum.log-20080327:Mar 18 21:51:37 Updated: yum-3.2.12-4.fc9.noarch
yum.log-20080327:Mar 27 00:52:24 Updated: yum-3.2.13-1.fc9.noarch
[root at potoroo log]#


I've been going through the logs and I don't see the evidence there, but 
then the cleanup phase isn't recorded.

For measuring this kind of problem, it would be useful for yum to log
Startup commandline
Changes between processing phases
Elapsed time and result.

btw If the improvements are related to overlapping downloading and 
installing, probably I'd not benefit much there. If it doesn't hit the 
disks so much, I _should_ see quite a big improvement (but expecting to 
use my 2 Gbytes of RAM would be bad on some of my other systems).




> 
> -sv
> 
> 


-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu  Z1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

You cannot reply off-list:-)