On Jan 31, 2005, Konstantin Ryabitsev <mricon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 30 Jan 2005 18:16:21 -0200, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 278.7MiB) just in metadata over a period of 9 months, total > That's about 1 megabyte per day. Yeah. Multiply that by a few thousand users, if you happen to run one of the mirrors... > I'm hard pressed to say that it makes > much difference in overall end-user traffic, especially seeing as you > are probably an exception: it's much less than that for a "generic > user" who has base, updates-released, and maybe freshrpms or > fedora.us+livna configured. How can it be less if you're downloading stuff from more repos? > Hell, I get about that much SPAM every day -- ~200 5k messages, that > works up to about 1MiB. I'm sure I get more than that. But that's not the point. The point is the new repodata format was proposed to improve on what yum had, but I'm convinced it's a step backwards as it stands. It does offer one immediate advantage to the user, namely, the faster download of information needed for an initial dependency resolution, but, in the long run, you end up waiting longer for downloads, on total. > Now, I had to download and install 180MiB of OpenOffice updates > yesterday. THAT sucked. The amount of YUM truffic compared to that is > simply inconsequential. Yeah, it's a pain. It just doesn't *feel* that bad when you spread this wait over 9 months, but it *is* that bad. > Network bandwidth is getting cheaper by the day. Yeah, sure, so let's just waste it to make up? Doesn't sound very clever to me. > at some point the benefit of having an abstracted environment that's > easy to maintain wins over the "but it's so much larger in size!". What if it's smaller and easy to maintain? -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
