Linked by Rahul on Tue 28th Apr 2009 14:49 UTC
Fedora Core Fedora 11 Preview Release has been announced with a large number of new features, even more so than previous general releases. This includes Presto (delta RPM updates reducing bandwidth usage over 80% typically), automatic font and mime installer via PackageKit, Nouveau as the default driver for Nvidia cards (3D support is not mature and disabled however), simplified Anaconda text mode installation and minimal installation support, automatic Bug Reporting tool, native access to Microsoft Exchange using OpenChange, Firefox 3.1 and ThunderBird 3.0, Windows Cross Compiler (MinGW and a comprehensive set of cross compiled libraries), Ext4 as the default filesystem, experimental support for the next generation Btrfs filesystem, improved I18N with the switch to IBus input system by default, much improved Kernel Mode Support, many virtualization and security improvements, RPM 4.7, GNOME 2.26, KDE 4.2, Xfce 4.6, Linux Kernel 2.6.29, Python 2.6. GCC 4.4 and several other changes.
Thread beginning with comment 361044
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: upgrades
by sbergman27 on Thu 30th Apr 2009 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE: upgrades"
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

C. What's wrong with RPM? Granted, back in the RedHat 5-9 days, the lack of a network front-end (such as yum/apt/etc) made life pretty difficult. Never the less I fail to see how RPM is any worse than DEB.

FWIW, Up2date was introduced by Red Hat during the old 7.x series. (Was it 7.0?) and was backported to 6.2.

From a user's standpoint, it is not so much any particular technical features of debs that set deb-based distros apart. It is the availability of a mind boggling breadth of packages, organized into just a few centralized, well known, and well defined repositories which generally don't conflict with each other. (More packages, better organized than in the yum world.) Apt (as distinct from dpkg) is also, in the real world, much faster than yum, both in handling all the metadata, and in doing the actual downloads. I believe it can parallelize downloads from multiple servers.

Also, yum's memory requirements are insane. I have about a 60 user XDMCP server maxed out at 12GB of memory. Performance is find during the day, with 60 Gnome desktops running. No complaints about performance.

But I don't dare run 'yum install some_package' during the day. Because it causes such a swap storm that I know I will immediately get a call from the general manager saying that everyone is locked up. (Edit: I feel like I should add that I'm *really* not making this up.) It's one of the (many) reasons that I'm migrating the machine to a different distro next month.

rpm and deb may be theoretically equivalent as formats. But in the real world, the differences are readily apparent.

Edited 2009-04-30 15:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: upgrades
by gilboa on Fri 1st May 2009 12:52 in reply to "RE[2]: upgrades"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

From a user's standpoint, it is not so much any particular technical features of debs that set deb-based distros apart. It is the availability of a mind boggling breadth of packages, organized into just a few centralized, well known, and well defined repositories which generally don't conflict with each other. (More packages, better organized than in the yum world.)


A. As long as you keep yourself to well organized repositories, such the Fedora (default) and RPMFusion (biggest 3'rd part repository in the Fedora world), the number of conflicts should be more-or-less the same as Debian.
B. With these two repositories (Fedora, RPMFusion), Fedora has ~17000 packages [1]. While somewhat less than Debian, Fedora's packages tend to be newer.

Apt (as distinct from dpkg) is also, in the real world, much faster than yum, both in handling all the metadata, and in doing the actual downloads. I believe it can parallelize downloads from multiple servers.


Sorry, but this claim should taken behind the shed and shot.
In my experience apt is no faster than, say, Fedora 9 or 10. (Even w/o presto)
From a -clean- state, with 4 repositories (Fedora, fedora-updates, RPMFusion, kde-*), it takes me between 1:30 to 2:20 to get a clean copy of -all- the repositories and conduct a full search. [2]. (I ran the test 3 times. Slowest run displayed; Fastest run took ~1:28)
While apt support for multiple downloads is major plus, Fedora (at least here) has better repositories which usually max-out my net connection (both @home and @work), so parallel download doesn't really change anything. On the other hand, Fedora's mirror and repository management is far better than Debian's.
Never the less, could you please post comparable results from a Debian machine?

Also, yum's memory requirements are insane. I have about a 60 user XDMCP server maxed out at 12GB of memory. Performance is find during the day, with 60 Gnome desktops running. No complaints about performance.
But I don't dare run 'yum install some_package' during the day. Because it causes such a swap storm that I know I will immediately get a call from the general manager saying that everyone is locked up. (Edit: I feel like I should add that I'm *really* not making this up.) It's one of the (many) reasons that I'm migrating the machine to a different distro next month.


First, I wouldn't use Fedora for an XDMP server to begin with. Being bleeding edge, Fedora should not be used for a production sever. (Especially given the 13 month support cycle)
Second, people tend to forget that being bleeding edge, Fedora releases a -lot- of updates on a daily basis. At least in part, Yum's memory consumption depends on the number of packages being installed / updated.
Could you please compare apt memory consumption to Yum, when you try and install 100 packages?

rpm and deb may be theoretically equivalent as formats. But in the real world, the differences are readily apparent.


I beg to differ.

- Gilboa

[1] Package count:
$ yum list | wc -l
17232

[2] Listing packages, clean state, cached:
$ yum clean all
...
$ time yum search no-such-package
...
real 2m18.901s
user 0m5.215s
sys 0m0.888s
$ time yum search no-such-package
...
real 0m1.141s
user 0m0.836s
sys 0m0.213s

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: upgrades
by sbergman27 on Fri 1st May 2009 15:34 in reply to "RE[3]: upgrades"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Sorry, but this claim should taken behind the shed and shot. In my experience apt is no faster than, say, Fedora 9 or 10. (Even w/o presto) From a -clean- state, with 4 repositories (Fedora, fedora-updates, RPMFusion, kde-*), it takes me between 1:30 to 2:20 to get a clean copy of -all- the repositories and conduct a full search. [2]. (I ran the test 3 times. Slowest run displayed; Fastest run took ~1:28)

Well, I just ran the same test, from a -clean- slate, with apt on Ubuntu Jaunty and measured an average of 14.5 seconds on 3 runs. (Range: 13.8s - 15.0s) The total number of packages was 26701. The servers are noticeably slower right now due to the recent release of 9.04. But with apt, I'm still seeing 6 to 8 times the performance than you are seeing with yum. The fact that you seem to consider 1:28 to 2:20 good is amazing to me. (Although your numbers are about what I would have guessed for Yum.) I suppose people come to accept what they are used to. Yum *is* a lot better than it used to be.

Your numbers, while pretty poor, do show another annoying characteristic of yum in the real world. See how *variable* the performance is? Not infrequently, I have to abort and try again. And not on just one machine. This is something I have noticed about yum over time. The Fedora mirror system has lots of dud and unresponsive servers. Timeout and fall back to another server is a routine occurrence.

While apt support for multiple downloads is major plus, Fedora (at least here) has better repositories which usually max-out my net connection (both @home and @work), so parallel download doesn't really change anything.

Really? On the same connection, I typically see a couple hundred KB/s, at best, using yum (yes, with the fastest-mirror plugin) and I regularly see around 1MB/s (or even more) with apt. It's interesting to watch apt "ramp up" as it finds more servers. Yum typically just staggers along, variably.

On the other hand, Fedora's mirror and repository management is far better than Debian's.

I never *worry* or think about mirrors with apt in Ubuntu. They "just work" and work well. I only have to mess with mirror configs with yum and Fedora. Relative repo management finesse, I'm not sure about.

First, I wouldn't use Fedora for an XDMP server to begin with. Being bleeding edge, Fedora should not be used for a production sever. (Especially given the 13 month support cycle)

I agree completely. The way this happened is that we were coming from, and thus were somewhat already committed to, the Red Hat world. Which means Fedora or CentOS. We were using CentOS, and it's a good OS. But by EOL the packages are moldy goo, which is not ideal for an XDMCP server. Some of the Fedora advocates around here convinced me that Fedora would be OK because of the supposedly fantastic testing that packages get as part of the release process. And one can only tell so much from a small pilot evaluation. Boy were they wrong. Boy was I wrong. And boy was the move from CentOS 4 to Fedora 8 embarrassing!

Second, people tend to forget that being bleeding edge, Fedora releases a -lot- of updates on a daily basis. At least in part, Yum's memory consumption depends on the number of packages being installed / updated.

Well, yeah, a gigabyte a month of Fedora updates is a pain.

Could you please compare apt memory consumption to Yum, when you try and install 100 packages?

No. I am not going to install and deinstall 100 packages on either my home desktop or on my customers' servers just to get numbers for you. I will reiterate and clarify that yum can cause swap storms on the XDMCP server in question when installing just *one* package. And I'm not the only one who has noticed. Just google for:

fedora yum memory

Edited 2009-05-01 15:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2