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

Bug#47417: marked as done (apt: apt-get ftp should retry if USER fails)



Your message dated Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:49:14 -0600 (MDT)
with message-id <Pine.LNX.3.96.991014124801.19491R-100000@localhost>
and subject line Bug#47417: apt: apt-get ftp should retry if USER fails
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Oct 1999 16:33:45 +0000
Received: (qmail 4358 invoked from network); 14 Oct 1999 16:33:44 -0000
Received: from dnai-216-15-97-161.cust.dnai.com (HELO zack.bitmover.com) (216.15.97.161)
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 14 Oct 1999 16:33:44 -0000
Received: (from zack@localhost)
	by zack.bitmover.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA22716;
	Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:34:02 -0700
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:34:02 -0700
Message-Id: <199910141634.JAA22716@zack.bitmover.com>
From: Zack Weinberg <zack@bitmover.com>
Subject: apt: apt-get ftp should retry if USER fails
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Mailer: bug 3.2.6

Package: apt
Version: 0.3.13
Severity: wishlist

If apt-get attempts to connect to an FTP server and is rejected at the
USER request, this is usually because the server is throttling connections.
It should sleep for a short, tunable interval (5-30sec) and retry the same
download.  Instead it immediately proceeds to the next file on its list.

Also, I am not certain, but it appears that apt-get reconnects to the FTP
server for every file transfer.  It'd be nice if it would cache the control
connection.

zw

-- System Information
Debian Release: potato
Kernel Version: Linux zack 2.2.13pre15 #1 Mon Oct 4 22:12:49 PDT 1999 i686 unknown

Versions of the packages apt depends on:
ii  libc6           2.1.2-5        GNU C Library: Shared libraries and timezone
ii  libstdc++2.10   2.95.2-0pre2   The GNU stdc++ library
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 47417-done) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Oct 1999 18:49:27 +0000
Received: (qmail 2069 invoked from network); 14 Oct 1999 18:49:27 -0000
Received: from pilsener.srv.ualberta.ca (129.128.5.19)
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 14 Oct 1999 18:49:27 -0000
Received: from localhost (async5-16.remote.ualberta.ca [129.128.238.89])
	by pilsener.srv.ualberta.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17374;
	Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:49:16 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from localhost [127.0.0.1] (jgg)
	by localhost with smtp (Exim 2.11 #1)
	id 11bpwB-0000WB-00 (Debian); Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:49:15 -0600
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:49:14 -0600 (MDT)
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ualberta.ca>
X-Sender: jgg@localhost
To: Zack Weinberg <zack@bitmover.com>, 47417-done@bugs.debian.org
cc: APT Development Team <deity@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#47417: apt: apt-get ftp should retry if USER fails
In-Reply-To: <199910141634.JAA22716@zack.bitmover.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.96.991014124801.19491R-100000@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Thu, 14 Oct 1999, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> If apt-get attempts to connect to an FTP server and is rejected at the
> USER request, this is usually because the server is throttling connections.
> It should sleep for a short, tunable interval (5-30sec) and retry the same
> download.  Instead it immediately proceeds to the next file on its list.

If you turn on acquire::retries to some high value then it will
automatically retry if a file fails.
 
> Also, I am not certain, but it appears that apt-get reconnects to the FTP
> server for every file transfer.  It'd be nice if it would cache the control
> connection.

It does reuse the control connection

Jason


Reply to: