Subject: Re: [vserver] one-liner /etc/apt/sources.list in guest?
From: Declan Mullen <declan@jadplace.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:22:44 +1100



Corey Wright wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:04:27 +1100
> Declan Mullen <declan@jadplace.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Corey Wright wrote:
>>     
>>> and don't forget to use a caching/mirroring/saving proxy.  i recently
>>> gave up on apt-cache and went with the more generic http-replicator.  a
>>> proxy accelerates guest installs, security updates, and even "apt-get
>>> update". it's also beneficial for rolling back to a previous package
>>> version on debian unstable/testing (as the old version has probably
>>> been removed from the archive and using snapshot.debian.net can be a
>>> pain). 
>>>       
>> I was thinking of using apt-cacher, what types of problems prompted you 
>> to give up on it ?
>>     
>
> i'm an idiot!  i meant "apt-proxy".
>
> apt-proxy does not support two clients downloaded the same file
> concurrently.  i never knew this because until lately i only ran a single
> server.  (all the vserver guests were updated sequentially using a script
> executed on the debian host and my ubuntu desktops are updated randomly
> enough based on when they are turned on.)  and the version in stable has
> been pretty "stable" but sometimes failed/cancelled downloads cause
> apt-proxy to hang.  the version in testing (which i run on my workstation,
> servicing only my workstation), which will hopefully be the stable version
> shortly, hangs once a week or so.  the worst thing is the application is
> still running and accepting connections from clients, but not downloading
> any files.  but the lack of concurrency (downloading the same file from two
> different clients concurrently) was the proverbial "straw that broke the
> camel's back".  i created an init script for http-replicator and have been
> using it successfully the last month or so without problem.
>
> yeah, there's approx, apt-cacher, etc, but in the end i figured something
> that was designed for general use (not specifically apt repositories) would
> be simpler and therefor conceivably work better (it does) and have broader
> applicability if i needed it (eg fedora & yum, rhel & rhn).  (i've
> previously used it experimentally for saving windows update so that they
> can later be applied manually if needed. "experimentally" not because there
> were problems, but because i don't use windows enough to put it into
> "production".)
>
> corey
>   
Thanks for the insight on apt-proxy, I was also going to consider it too.