<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body ><div>Why not use the auto update feature that is in Ubuntu. I use it and recoeve emails about the upgrades</div><div> </div><div> </div><div><div style="font-size:75%;color:#575757">Sent from Samsung Mobile</div></div> -------- Original message -------- From: Antonio Rosales <antonio.rosales@canonical.com> Date: 01/07/2014 21:38 (GMT+01:00) To: Andrew Wilkins <andrew.wilkins@canonical.com> Cc: juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Subject: Re: Proposal: making apt-get upgrade optional 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? [0] https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1336353 -thanks, Antonio On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Andrew Wilkins <andrew.wilkins@canonical.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 5:45 PM, John Meinel <john@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@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 </body>