On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 21:34 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 18:40 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Joshua Andrews wrote: > >> > >>> Thank you Jef. > >>> > >>> I must say that this is a really big piece of shit! Maybe a simple yum > >>> update could have solved this problem for thousands of people!!!!!! Maybe? > >> It wont. Since you wont be able to get that update without the mirror > >> list working. > > > > If yum had a better mirrorlist selection algorithm, this issue would not > > have appeared ;) > > Mirror list selection is a server side infrastructure issue. Wrong, it's a yum design flaw. E.g. if the mirrorlist file was on a local disc, yum would not try to contact the mirrorlist on the server each time it is being invoked. The work around from RH's side would be pretty easy: Ship a local copy of the mirrorlist file as an rpm and let yum use this. Then update this rpm at regular intervals. > > And if yum had a counter part to "apt-get update" the network load would > > be less, which would make server overloads and DOS/QOS attacks less > > successful. > > yum update = apt-get update Very oversimplified yes. The difference is in "remove / install" yum contacts the mirror server each time anew on each invocation, apt-get doesn't Try a dialon-demand dialup over a modem and you'll pretty soon notice why I consider yum to be a "network connection hog" Ralf
