You are viewing illiterat

James Antill - YUM resource usage, an accurate assessment

May. 20th, 2008

10:00 pm - YUM resource usage, an accurate assessment

Previous Entry Add to Memories Share Next Entry

Comments:

From:(Anonymous)
Date:May 21st, 2008 02:57 pm (UTC)

I love YUM but .....

(Link)
I've been a long time user of Redhat and RPM in general and I appreciate the work the package management system does for me - if I can avoid doing tar-balls I do.

However, I think you might be missing the point a bit. Criticism is always hard - in particular if the word is "not good enough" after you've put in a great effort to make things better. Of course things can always be improved, but I don't think that's the point.

My observation - as the total outsider to this - is that if the product takes time because of it's complexity it may be time to reduce that complexity. An example could be, how often is the wild-card functionality used - versus a simple "give me this package" install in yum? If we're talking 90-10 - why not simply have two versions - a simple and an advanced. The simple for most people, while the rare system admin would use the advanced (slower but more complete) version?

In regards to your last comment, that is definitely an area that I'm faced with and would like to see solved. I think the approach would be to do image handling instead of package handling. Setup a primary image - use the package manager there, but then simply move the changed files over with "patch" type functionality. If I have 100 Centos5 boxes, I need the /usr and most other areas the RPMs will touch to be in sync. Of course there are exceptions and those would be handled by the package management. It's a total diversion from basically having the same logic being executed for each host but in large environments I think that's our only way out?
[User Picture]
From:illiterat
Date:May 21st, 2008 03:37 pm (UTC)

Re: I love YUM but .....

(Link)
However, I think you might be missing the point a bit. Criticism is always hard - in particular if the word is "not good enough" after you've put in a great effort to make things better. Of course things can always be improved, but I don't think that's the point.

Well I tried to make sure I mentioned it in the article, and I did link to the performance tests on different yum versions, but yes we know that older versions did cross the threshold from "fast enough" to "not fast enough" for various reasons. However current YUM code (I'm using 3.2.16 in Fedora 9) does "simple queries" in less than 2 seconds and "simple installs" in about 6 seconds (but note that you'll often need pacakges to be downloaded, and even if not RPM will need to install the packages -- which will add significantly to this) on the other end a full Fedora 8 to Fedora 9 update takes less than a minute within YUM (40ish seconds, IIRC).

I appreciate that CentOS 5 is still on 3.0.x, so anyone using that is going to have a radically different experience. However I assume the 3.2.8++ based version will be available "soon", given that it was released by Red Hat today. And I'd heard they'd been thinking of putting a 3.2.16 version into centosplus.

So my point was that, while those numbers could get smaller (and for all I know apt/zypper/etc. could be better in all cases) it is not the most beneficial goal to have the YUM part of install go from 6 seconds to 2 seconds.