Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 15:10, William Hooper wrote: > >>> >>> Which you trade off against fewer people using and testing because >>> of the inconvenience of having to download 800 megs of updates after >>> each install, or because long-fixed bugs in the release kernel prevent >>> installation at all. If Ubuntu is easier and faster to install, you >>> will lose all the testers. >> >> When did Ubuntu start doing releases faster than every six months? >> > > They are out-of-sync with fedora. If you install today you'd > get a fairly old FC4 iso vs a pretty new Ubuntu. So when FC5 comes out, the situation will be reversed. How is Ubuntu winning here? > And with Ubuntu you only > install one CD and pull the rest from the network. IIRC a standard "click next through the install" of FC4 only requires the first two cds. > I assume this gets the > current up to date version the first time as opposed to having to > download/install an old version from a 4-iso set, then replace that with a > downloaded update. It's that same thing. If you install the package at install time, you have to download the update. If you don't install it at install time you download the newest version. This really comes down to what packages you pick at install. With FC you get more packages you can install from CD and just do an update operation. With Ubutu you have to do installs of your additional apps, then do an update. You download the same amount of bytes either way. >>> and it would most likely result in less bandwidth usage since the >>> users would no longer have to download the iso and then do another >>> many hundred megs of update downloads for each machine installed. >> >> Bandwidth would increase because you will be syncing more bytes from >> the main server. Then you would get a group of people downloading every >> ISO >> set so they can have the newest set in case they need to install a new >> machine. > > And every time they do install, it saves the bandwidth of doing those > updates. Plus, the isos make good bittorrent targets Moving bittorrent targets that cause old seeds out there to cause confusion because you have a bunch of links named "FC4-current". People providing seeds need to keep re-downloading new ISOs to seed to try to keep current. > or rsync can be used > to cut bandwidth. >From what I've seen rsync doesn't really give any savings on ISOs from one test update to the next, so I don't believe it would help much in this situation. > There's not much you can do about yum. It is even > pre-configured so caching proxies don't help with multiple machine > updates. Please, not this old saw again. Haven't you seen the amount of problems that come up on the CentOS list because of their round-robin DNS scheme? Especially during large updates, which you are proposing to have more of. >> Or people that have installed in the past downloading a newer >> set when doing a reinstall. > > Likewise a win at some number of installs or some size of > update set. Or when done with bittorrent or rsync. If I'm doing a number of installs, I'm using a local install point anyway. -- William Hooper
