apt-proxy-users

[Apt-proxy-users] apt-proxy performance: dd

[Martijn B. <e.a...@tn...>]

Hi,
I am running apt-proxy (the old version) on an old computer with debian 
woody. I noticed that dd consumes all cpu, which makes total performance 
poor (throughput of 20kb/s instead of 75kb/s). This is due to the ibs=1 
option.
Now I am considering using v2, but this one requires python 2.3 
according to the info in the deb from experimental. Can I run this one 
on woody with python 2.1?

Bye,

Martijn Brouwer

[Apt-proxy-users] Re: apt-proxy performance: dd

[Chris H. <ha...@de...>]

Hi Martijn,
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 00:16, Martijn Brouwer wrote:
> I am running apt-proxy (the old version) on an old computer with debian 
> woody. I noticed that dd consumes all cpu, which makes total performance 
> poor (throughput of 20kb/s instead of 75kb/s). This is due to the ibs=1 
> option.

Oh, that's not good :(

What happens if you try increasing the ibs and obs sizes to the length
of the message?  I don't know if this might work:

Change
            dd ibs=1 obs=16384 skip=$2 count=$3 if="$1" 2>/dev/null

To
            dd ibs=$(( $3 - $2 )) obs=$(( $3 - $2 )) skip=$2 count=$3 if="$1" 2>/dev/null

> Now I am considering using v2, but this one requires python 2.3 
> according to the info in the deb from experimental. Can I run this one 
> on woody with python 2.1?

The main problem is not with the Python version, it is with the
python-twisted version.  Twisted wasn't really stable until around
version 0.99, and Woody only has 0.15 AFAIK.

I don't think apt-proxy has been tested with Python 2.1, and I don't
know if there are any changes between 2.1 and 2.3 that would cause
problems.  You'd just have to try it and see what happens.

Chris

[Apt-proxy-users] Re: apt-proxy performance: dd

[Martijn B. <e.a...@tn...>]

Chris Halls wrote:

>Hi Martijn,
>On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 00:16, Martijn Brouwer wrote:
>  
>
>>I am running apt-proxy (the old version) on an old computer with debian 
>>woody. I noticed that dd consumes all cpu, which makes total performance 
>>poor (throughput of 20kb/s instead of 75kb/s). This is due to the ibs=1 
>>option.
>>    
>>
>
>Oh, that's not good :(
>
>What happens if you try increasing the ibs and obs sizes to the length
>of the message?  I don't know if this might work:
>  
>
I tried the your suggestion, and when I ran apt-get update I got this 
output:

Get:2 http://server sarge/main Packages
99% [2 Packages gzip 0] [Connecting to server (192.168.0.1)]        
66.1kB/s 0s
gzip: stdin: invalid compressed data--format violated
Err http://server sarge/main Packages
  Sub-process gzip returned an error code (1)
Get:3 http://server sarge/main Release [81B]
Err http://server sarge/non-free Packages
  0 OK
Get:4 http://server sarge/non-free Release [85B]
Err http://server sarge/contrib Packages
  0 OK
Get:5 http://server sarge/contrib Release
Fetched 3579kB in 1m29s (39.9kB/s)
Failed to fetch 
http://server:9999/debian/dists/sarge/main/binary-i386/Packages.gz  
Sub-process gzip returned an error code (1)
Failed to fetch 
http://server:9999/debian/dists/sarge/non-free/binary-i386/Packages.gz  0 OK
Failed to fetch 
http://server:9999/debian/dists/sarge/contrib/binary-i386/Packages.gz  0 OK
Reading Package Lists... Done
W: Couldn't stat source package list http://server sarge/main Packages 
(/var/lib/apt/lists/server:9999_debian_dists_sarge_main_binary-i386_Packages) 
- stat (2 No such file or directory)
W: Couldn't stat source package list http://server sarge/main Packages 
(/var/lib/apt/lists/server:9999_debian_dists_sarge_main_binary-i386_Packages) 
- stat (2 No such file or directory)
W: You may want to run apt-get update to correct these problems
E: Some index files failed to download, they have been ignored, or old 
ones used instead.

But it was much faster :) Do you have another suggestion?

About the python version: I do not want to mess up my server, so for the 
time being I will not swith to apt-proxy v2. Hopefully, sarge will be 
stable soon...

Thanks for your help

Martijn

[Apt-proxy-users] Re: apt-proxy performance: dd

[Chris H. <ha...@de...>]

On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 14:52, Martijn Brouwer wrote:
> E: Some index files failed to download, they have been ignored, or old 
> ones used instead.
> 
> But it was much faster :) Do you have another suggestion?

Oh :(  No, sorry I'm not very familiar with dd.

> About the python version: I do not want to mess up my server, so for the 
> time being I will not swith to apt-proxy v2. Hopefully, sarge will be 
> stable soon...

I understand; although you could always set up a sarge chroot
environment.  It's reasonably easy, provided you have the disk space
(um, around 200Mb I would guess) available.

Assuming you use /chroot for the environment,  replace MIRROR with your
local debian mirror.  This can be an apt-proxy (use HOSTNAME:9999):

apt-get install debootstrap
mkdir /chroot
debootstrap sarge /chroot http://MIRROR/debian
cp /etc/resolv.conf /chroot/etc/resolv.conf
chroot /chroot
echo 'deb http://MIRROR/debian sarge main' > /etc/apt/sources.list
echo 'deb http://MIRROR/debian project/experimental/main/binary-$(ARCH)/' >> /etc/apt/sources.list
apt-get update
apt-get install apt-proxy/experimental

Hope that helps,
Chris