On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 16:07 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote: > On Sun, 2006-04-30 at 00:08 +0930, Tim wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 08:44 -0400, Temlakos wrote: > > > As kernel updates become available, the user will eventually build a > > > list of kernels to boot into. I always keep three: the current kernel > > > and that last /two/ known good ones. Anything beyond that just fills up > > > space in your /boot partition, unless you're a tester or kernel module > > > developer. But anything /less/ than that puts you at some non-starter risk. > > > > Agreed, though I run the risk and often just keep two. Well, I'll > > remove the third after the newest seems to work well, after a few days. > > > > The more you have, the longer updates take, too. There's more files to > > consider. My system's not too nippy (500 MHz Celeron), and I can notice > > it's slower to do a "rpm -Uvh something.rpm" when I have three or more > > kernels. > > This latter statement makes no sense to me. How can kernels that are not > running slow the yum update process? Could you offer an explanation for > this? > -- I believe the slowdown that original poster was seeing was due to the additional entry in the kernel rpm db, which had to be considered when using the -U option to rpm. Removing the unused kernel entries from the database with rpm -e would most likely speed things up a bit. I see no mention of any slowdown in the yum process itself in the original post. Although, not being totally intimate with the internals of the yum script(s), perhaps there is more logic to be executed by the script when multiple kernels are installed. DP > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
