Proposal: making apt-get upgrade optional
Tim Penhey
tim.penhey at canonical.com
Thu Jul 3 21:23:43 UTC 2014
I do just want to make the point that we are not just an ubuntu only
system any more, nor even linux only.
I'd prefer if we kept away from terms like "apt-get" as it doesn't make
sense for windows nor centos. While we could certainly treat those
values differently on the other platforms, it definitely gives the
feeling that we are *mainly* ubuntu and (hand wavey) some others.
Any ideas for better names?
Tim
On 04/07/14 02:56, Matt Bruzek wrote:
> +1 to making these options configurable and having sane defaults.
>
> Thanks!
>
> - Matt Bruzek <matthew.bruzek at canonical.com
> <mailto:matthew.bruzek at canonical.com>>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Antonio Rosales
> <antonio.rosales at canonical.com <mailto:antonio.rosales at canonical.com>>
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 7:19 PM, Andrew Wilkins
> <andrew.wilkins at canonical.com <mailto:andrew.wilkins at canonical.com>>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Antonio Rosales
> > <antonio.rosales at canonical.com
> <mailto:antonio.rosales at 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.wilkins at canonical.com
> <mailto:andrew.wilkins at canonical.com>> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 5:45 PM, John Meinel
> <john at arbash-meinel.com <mailto:john at 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.wilkins at canonical.com
> <mailto:andrew.wilkins at 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 at lists.ubuntu.com <mailto:Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com>
> >> >>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> >> >>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Juju-dev mailing list
> >> > Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com <mailto:Juju-dev at 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 at lists.ubuntu.com <mailto:Juju-dev at lists.ubuntu.com>
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
>
>
>
>
More information about the Juju-dev
mailing list