On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Antonio Rosales < antonio.rosa...@canonical.com> wrote:
> Suggest we make an environments.yaml key value of say "apt-get-update" > set to a boolean with the default being "true". Existing charms are > timing out[0] when apt-get update is turned off due to stale apt-get > metadata. Users then can them make the choice, and we can make > suggestions in the docs as to what this key value means and how it can > improve performance especially in the developer scenario when the care > more about fast iterative deploys. > > Thoughts? > I'm not suggesting we turn off update, just upgrade. We add repos (cloud-tools, ppa), so we need to update for juju's dependencies anyway. I don't think my proposal will affect charms. > [0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1336353 > > -thanks, > Antonio > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Andrew Wilkins > <andrew.wilk...@canonical.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 5:45 PM, John Meinel <j...@arbash-meinel.com> > wrote: > >> > >> I would just caution that we'd really prefer behavior to be consistent > >> across platforms and clouds, and if we can work with Microsoft to make > >> 'apt-get update' faster in their cloud everyone wins who uses Ubuntu > there, > >> not just us. > > > > > > I was meaning to disable it across all providers. It would be ideal to > > improve upgrades for all Ubuntu users, but from what I can tell it's a > case > > of Azure's OS disks being a tad slow. If you start going up the > > instance-type scale, then you do get more IOPS. I haven't measured how > much > > of a difference it makes. > > > >> > >> Have we looked into why Upgrade is taking 3m+? Is it the time to > download > >> things, is it the time to install things? I've certainly heard things > like > >> "disk ops is a bit poor" on Azure (vs CPU is actually better than > average). > >> Given the variance of 6m+ to 3m20s with Eat my data, it would seem disk > sync > >> performance is at least a factor here. > > > > > > I just looked, and it is mostly not network related (I assume mostly I/O > > bound). On ec2 an upgrade fetches all the bits in 0s; on Azure it's > taking > > 5s. > > > >> Given I believe apt-get update is also disabled for local (it is run on > >> the initial template, and then not run for the other instances copied > from > >> that), there is certainly precedence. I think a big concern is that we > would > >> probably still want to do apt-get update for security related updates. > >> Though perhaps that is all of the updates we are applying anyway... > >> > >> If I read the "aws.json" file correctly, I see only 8 releases of the > >> 'precise' image. 6 of 'trusty' and 32 total dates of released items. And > >> some of the trusty releases are 2014-01-22.1 which means it is likely > to be > >> beta releases. > >> > >> Anyway, that means that they are actually averaging an update only > >> 1/month, which is a fairly big window of updates to apply by the end of > >> month (I would imagine). And while that does mean it takes longer to > boot, > >> it also means you would be open to more security holes without it. > > > > > > My contention is that if we don't *keep* it updated, we may as well just > > leave it to the user. When you create an instance in ec2 or Azure or > > whatever, it doesn't come fully up-to-date. You get the released image, > and > > then you can update it if you want to. > > > >> John > >> =:-> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Andrew Wilkins > >> <andrew.wilk...@canonical.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi folks, > >>> > >>> I've been debugging a bootstrap bug [0] that was caused by ssh timing > out > >>> (and the client not noticing), which was caused by "apt-get upgrade" > taking > >>> an awfully long time (6 minutes on Azure). > >>> [0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1316185 > >>> > >>> I just filed https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1335822, and > did a > >>> quick and dirty hack that brought the upgrade down to 3 minutes on > Azure. I > >>> don't know the variance, so I can't be sure that it's all due to > eatmydata, > >>> but smoser's results are similar. > >>> > >>> Even with eatmydata, a full bootstrap on Azure just took me 10 minutes. > >>> That's roughly broken down into: > >>> - apt-get update: 20s > >>> - apt-get upgrade: 3m20s > >>> - apt-get install <various>: 10s > >>> - Download tools (from shared Azure storage account): 5s > >>> - jujud bootstrap: 1m50s > >>> > >>> We could bring the 10m down to 6m40s. Still not brilliant, but > >>> considerably better IMO. > >>> > >>> I propose that we remove the "apt-get upgrade" altogether. Cloud images > >>> are regularly updated and tested, and I think we should be able to > rely on > >>> that alone. If users want something more up-to-date, they can use the > daily > >>> images which are not tested as a whole, but are composed of SRUs, > which is > >>> effectively what users get today. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Andrew > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Juju-dev mailing list > >>> Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com > >>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > >>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Juju-dev mailing list > > Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com > > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > > > > > > -- > Antonio Rosales > Juju Ecosystem > Canonical >
-- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
