[Yum] Re: Yum support?
skvidal at phy.duke.edu
Tue Feb 4 22:20:11 UTC 2003
> I'm sorry, it didn't come out exactly how I meant. I admit I was
> exaggerating, but there is a significant performance impact w/o
> Because pages under <http://www.dulug.duke.edu/yum/> and
> <https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum> load very snappily
> here, I expected "yum update" to be a breeze also.
> I ran some tests right now, did a full "yum update" with only
> <http://mirror.dulug.duke.edu/pub/yum-repository/redhat/8.0/i386/> in my
> /etc/yum.conf and a clean /var/cache/yum. The result was that it took
> 29 minutes, 36 seconds. I watched the network activity during the
> update on GKrellM's net monitor, and a very inaccurate eye benchmark
> left me with a feeling that most of the time there was no traffic at
> all, just some bursts whenever a single .hdr was sucked.
hehe - mirror.dulug is a horribly abused and overloaded red hat mirror.
We had to throttle ftp and http fairly nastily to keep the tier2 mirrors
believe me, if I had my way it would be wide open.
> To compare, I grabbed
> with wget (it's about the same size as all the .hdr files together from
> my previous test, 8.2M). It took 10 minutes, 14 seconds (~13 K/s)
> whereas the "yum update" throughput would be about 4.5 K/s.
> So, to be fair, maybe it's not "dog slow", but not having keep-alive
> seems to result in roughly about three-fold performance difference with
> my connection to mirror.dulug.duke.edu. It's likely that even with
> keep-alive, the *.hdr files download wouldn't be as fast as just
> downloading a single file of the same size, but it should be close. I
> also guess that when the connection to the server is better than in this
> test, the significance of keep-alive is neglible (20 sec sounds good
> enough to me :).
Well a friend of mine is working on this now. He claims to have written
a keep-alive addition to urllib2 that gets a factor of 2 improvement in
time over 1000 hdr files.
well worth including, imo. Thanks for the idea. If his code works (and
his code usually does :), it'll get in soon.
> Ah, good! Sorry again, I thought I asked about the quiet option in a
> previous post to yum-list, but memory didn't serve me well on this one.
> I'll try to behave :) Will also try without 'rm -rf'ing and let you
> know if it doesn't work it should.
Nothing to worry about being good. I just didn't realize it was a
problem. I put the -q to yum-arch on my list.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.baseurl.org/pipermail/yum/attachments/20030204/19d2ef4c/attachment-0001.pgp
More information about the Yum