+1 to making these options configurable and having sane defaults. Thanks!
- Matt Bruzek <matthew.bru...@canonical.com> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Antonio Rosales < antonio.rosa...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Andrew Wilkins > <andrew.wilk...@canonical.com> wrote: > > 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. > > Ah yes, sorry. However, I would still suggest upgrade and update be > config parameter with the default being past behavior. On that note it > would also be nice to have a utility for Juju to pass on additional > user defined cloud-init config options. > > -thanks, > Antonio > > > > >> > >> [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 > > > > > > > > -- > 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 >
-- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
