Justin Conover wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Caolan McNamara <caolanm@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 17:54 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Justin Conover
<justin.conover@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
At 34MB it still takes
time, but .deb is 50MB cheaper that the .rpm.
you are comparing two different packages (2.0.4 and 2.4)
There's a few other problems with a direct comparison of sizes because
they are two packages called "core" with somewhat differing content. The
Debian "core" package depends on a "common" package which is an
additional 27megs in size. The content of both of these is included in
the single Fedora "core" rpm. Additionally the default help content is
included in the Fedora "core" rpm, which is available in the deb
packages as help-en_US, which is another additional 11 megs.
Additionally displaying help itself requires the use of the core writer
libraries to render the html help, in Debian this means that the
"writer" package is a dependency of help, and that's an additional 6megs
in size in its .deb. While in Fedora writer is split into the optional
bits called "writer" and the core required for use by help. Shrinking
the "writer" rpm by approx 3 megs, and inflating the "core" one by the
same.
To manually extract the various contents for side-by-side comparison you
can use
rpm2cpio something.rpm | cpio -ivd
vs
ar x something.rpm
tar xzf data.tar.gz
C.
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
Ok, everyone in this thread is replying to OOO, that was not my intent. If
you compare the speed of getting updates in debian and fedora, debian is
much faster. Forget package size at this point. Is it parallel downloads
maybe.
My main deal here is about the speed in which it takes to download all
updates and install. I was merely trying to understand why debian seems to
be much faster.
To compare.you need to find like-sized packages; the example quoted was
a bad example. and that's the point discussed.
You also need to find mirrors with equivalent capacity to give you; if
one mirror uploads to you faster than the other, that's not a fair
comparison.
yum is very slow to get itself organised, but once it gets underway it
should download at the same rate.
I don't think either downloads in parallel, and if your internet is
running at its rated speed, that is likely the bottleneck do running
two, three or more downloads in parallel will serve only to choke your
self. And waste server resources.
For a valid comparison, you need to set up a benchmark where you control
the server, the intervening network, and the clients. And both servers
need to be identical, and both clients need to be identical.
I've been a loyal Fedora user since RH 6.2 or some were in there :) so I'm
not leaving, just trying to understand when i play with it once in awhile it
just handles downloads differently.
If you download enough that i's an important issue for you, consider
establishing your own mirror that you update at a time that is
convenient to you, and/or run your own Squid proxy.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
