On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 13:06 +0000, Paul Howarth wrote: > J.Moore wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-01-11 at 10:38 -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > > > > > >>Not going to flame, but I am going to disagree. The vast vast vast > >>majority of people (including myself) have no issues running the Yum > >>update service. > >> > >># chkconfig yum on > >># service yum start > > > > > > I'm going to have to disagree with your choice of adjectives. My > > experience is that about one of every 3 attempts at 'yum update' > > requires manual intervention due to a broken mirror that results in an > > indefinite "stall" in the update sequence. > > If you regularly have problems with mirrors, All mirrors are broken (in the sense of badly reachable) on occasion ;) As it seems to me, esp. when "mega-updates" (e.g. openoffice update) are being pushed. Another factor seems to be the notion of "nightly". RH and FE often seem to push their updates exactly during the time Europeans consider to be night (== Evening in the US). > it's probably worth your > while configuring a local mirrorlist that work quickly and reliably for > you. See http://fedoranews.org/tchung/yum-mirrorlist/ for an example. I found the only server to be almost always consistent is the "master" :-) > In fact it's probably worth doing this even if you don't have trouble > with mirrors, as at least you can specify ones closer network-wise to > you, which will be faster. Agreed, it's worth it, nevertheless as "reachability" and "consistency" are temporary features of a server, it only helps temporarily. Ralf
