Re: Why is yum not liked by some? -- CVS analogy (and why you're not getting it)

[mailing-lists at hughesjr.com (Johnny Hughes)]

On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 10:21 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 08:32, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 08:54 -0400, William Hooper wrote:
> > > Rsync only imposes that load the once or twice a month you sync, not every
> > > time a machine does a "yum update".
> > 
> > Exactly!  He seems to also fail to understand that there is a
> > significant "cost savings" for _all_ parties to rsync the YUM
> > repository.
> 
> The only reason there is even a possible savings is that yum circumvents
> standard http/ftp caching practices by randomizing the source locations.
> Even then, you'd have to update a vast number of server-type machines to
> make up for the fact that rsync'ing the repository is going to pull
> copies of updates for a gazillion programs that no machine has
> installed.
> 
Yum doesn't do that at all ... we at CentOS do it on purpose.  

We can't possibly provide access by one server to all the CentOS users
who want to do updates.  We transmit more than 18 TB of data per month
for updates and rsyncs ... so we use something called rrdns (round robin
DNS) to create mirror.centos.org (or us-mirror and eu-mirror) for yum,
and msync.centos.org(or us-msync, eu-msync) for rsync.  Those names all
have multiple machines that respond in a round robin way to requests.

That way, we can utilize many different servers to provide CentOS yum
and rsync servers.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050909/99e5b1ec/attachment.bin