[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian's problems, Debian's future

On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 10:40:31PM -0700, Robert Tiberius Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 02:28, Anthony Towns wrote: 
> > I'd suggest your formula would be better off being:
> > 	bandwidthcost = sum( x = 1..30, prob(x) * cost(x) / x )
> I think it depends on what you're measuring.  I can think of two ways to
> measure the "goodness" of these schemes (there are certainly others): 
> 1. What is the average bandwidth required at the server? 
> 2. What is the average bandwidth required at the client? 

I don't think the bandwidth at the server is a major issue to anyone,
although obviously improvements there are a Good Thing.

Personally, I think "amount of time spent waiting for apt-get update
to finish" is the important measure (well, "apt-get update; apt-get
dist-upgrade" is important too, but I don't thing we've seen any feasible
ideas at improving the latter).

> prob2(i)=(prob1(i)/i)*norm, 
> where norm is a normalization factor so the probabilities sum to 1. 
> I've been looking at question 2, and you're suggesting that I look at
> question 1, except you forgot the normalization factor.  I think this is
> what you mean.  Please correct me if I've misunderstood. 

No, I'm not. I'm saying that "the amount of time spent waiting for
apt-get update" needs to count every apt-get update you run, not just
the first. So, if over a period of a week, I run it seven times, and you
run it once, I wait seven times as long as you do, so it's seven times
more important to speed things up for me, than for you.

> Anyway, here are the results you asked for.  I'm NOT including the
> normalization factor for easier comparison with your numbers.  My diff
> numbers are a little different from yours mainly because I charge 1K of
> overhead for each file request. 

Merging, and reordering by decreasing estimated bandwidth. The ones marked
with *'s aren't worth considering because there's a method that's both
has less bandwidth required, and takes up less diskspace. The ones without
stars are thus ordered by increasing diskspace, and decreasing bandwidth.

> days/
> bsize	dspace		ebwidth
> -------------------------------

Having the "ebwidth" of the current situation (everyone downloads the
entire Packages file) for comparison would be helpful.

> 1	12.000K		342.00K [diff]
> 20	312.50K	*	173.70K [cksum/rsync]
> 2	24.000K	*	171.20K [diff]
> 3	36.000K	*	95.900K [diff]
> 40	156.30K	*	89.300K [cksum/rsync]
> 60	104.20K	*	62.200K [cksum/rsync]
> 4	48.000K	*	58.500K [diff]
> 80	78.100K	*	49.300K [cksum/rsync]
> 100	62.500K	*	42.200K [cksum/rsync]
> 5	60.000K	*	38.800K [diff]
> 120	52.100K	*	37.900K [cksum/rsync]
> 400	15.600K		37.700K [cksum/rsync]
> 380	16.400K		36.800K [cksum/rsync]
> 360	17.400K		35.900K [cksum/rsync]
> 140	44.600K	*	35.300K [cksum/rsync]
> 340	18.400K		35.100K [cksum/rsync]
> 320	19.500K		34.300K [cksum/rsync]
> 300	20.800K	*	33.600K [cksum/rsync]
> 160	39.100K	*	33.600K [cksum/rsync]
> 280	22.300K		33.000K [cksum/rsync]
> 180	34.700K	*	32.700K [cksum/rsync]
> 260	24.000K		32.500K [cksum/rsync]
> 240	26.000K		32.200K [cksum/rsync]
> 200	31.300K	*	32.200K [cksum/rsync]
> 220	28.400K		32.100K [cksum/rsync]
> 6	72.000K		27.900K [diff]
> 7	84.000K		21.800K [diff]
> 8	96.000K		18.200K [diff]
> 9	108.00K		16.100K [diff]
> 10	120.00K		14.900K [diff]
> 11	132.00K		14.100K [diff]
> 12	144.00K		13.700K [diff]
> 13	156.00K		13.400K [diff]
> 14	168.00K		13.300K [diff]
> 15	180.00K		13.100K [diff]

180k is roughly 10% of the size of the corresponding Packages.gz, so
is relatively trivial. Since we'll probably do it at the same time as
dropping the uncompressed Packages file (sid/main/i386 alone is 6MB),
this is pretty neglible.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

     ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' 
                    -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif

Attachment: pgpmP_lQYEtY7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: